Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:33, 30 December 2010

• WP:ANI
• WP:AN/I

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

• Before posting:
  • Consider other means of dispute resolution first
  • Read these tips for dealing with incivility
  • If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page
  • If the issue concerns use of admin tools or other advanced permissions, request an administrative action review
  • Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly.
• Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem
• Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight.

When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough.
You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace
• Voluntary RfAs after resignation

Pmanderson and Byzantine names

• Could an admin willing to do so please review the above thread that was split to a subpage? It has received only a few comments over the past few days, likely due to a combination of the holiday season and being split off to a subpage (where the visibility is lower). Could I also suggest that when long threads that include some form of proposed sanction are split off, that the notice left here explicitly mentions that sanction (or that the urge to subpage is resisted), as it is important that threads like that get full visibility and are not just subpaged without ensuring that traffic to the thread does not drop off. If any admin feels that more discussion is needed before closing, then please unsubpage it. If anyone does review that subpage, could they leave a note here and on Pmanderson's talk page? Also, this subpage pointer will not archive before midnight on 31 December 2010 (I've used the process described at User:DoNotArchiveUntil), so hopefully someone will deal with this before then. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If this is resolved as a sanction, I would appreciate a time limit on it, whether a month or a year; to do otherwise is an incentive to abuse. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

some one want to formally close this? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It cannot be formally closed until it has been decided whether a topic ban needs to be enacted and, if so, what its duration should be. If it turns out that consensus is for a topic ban (I cannot tell at the moment), it would have to be formally logged here WP:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Misplaced Pages community. Mathsci (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)

Earlier this year, User:SqueakBox answered an advertisement on www.freelancer.com (advert & response) to create an article on an artist. The article was deemed non-notable and later deleted as an A7 speedy. There was an ANI thread on the matter at the time which can be seen here which was scathing of SqueakBox's activity.

Now, the same user has created Beber Silverstein Group in answer to an advert on the same website - advert & response. The article claims no real notability and was sourced to primary and non-RS sources and so I have redirected it back to the (possibly) notable owner.

Previously, SqueakBox said "I am happy to say I wont use this or other accounts to do work for payment now or in the future without being transparent about what I am doing." (here), which is clearly now a lie, because he's denied actually creating this article for money - see his responses at User_talk:SqueakBox#Beber_Silverstein_Group. Opening it up to the community - any action required? Black Kite (t) (c) 19:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If he were being honest about it and following COI guidelines, I wouldn't think it is worth taking action. However, since he blatantly lied bout the clear evidence and demanded that the accusation be retracted, it seems that some sort of sanction is needed. I'm not sure exactly what would be effective,, but it should be more than a warning (or admonishment) and less than an indefnite siteban. Perhaps a community sanction prohibiting him from editing BLPs or articles related to corporations (broadly construed)? Also a restriction to one account seems prudent, though I do not believe he has socked. The Wordsmith 19:51, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's generally agreed that User:SqueakBox (normally) contributes productively to the project, why beat around the bush and implement these sorts of topic bans? Why not simply bar him from editing the project for pay? jæs (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a big if; I've been unimpressed by my interactions with him. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:37, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I wouldn't say SqueakBox has a huge conflict of interest here, as he has no relation to the subject of the article; his main goal is to prevent it from getting deleted. I'd just say if any more articles that don't follow notability guidelines are created, just delete them. -download ׀ sign! 19:53, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that what we normally do to articles that are inherently not notable? In all honesty though, I think that he should be restricted from editing anything to do with paid editing and be restricted to one account (which is also something we kind of already do). I feel as though he should also alert us if he is approached to edit or create an article in a way that will involve reimbursement of some kind. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

BLPs and corporations are the most common types of paid articles. The Wordsmith 20:03, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

His conflict of interest is between his loyalty to Misplaced Pages and the $250 he seems to have been paid to write this article. $250 would be enough to pay my car insurance and gas for a month, so even if it wouldn't win out, even I would be tempted (and thus the interests would be conflicting). The Wordsmith 19:59, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I find the very concept of paid editing to be a bit of a terrifying Pandora's box, but the fact remains that the mere existence of a conflict ought not disqualify anyone from editing. If they can't balance that conflict and our policies and guidelines, then it becomes an issue requiring intervention. Does the repeated pattern of creating non-notable articles for pay qualify as such a problem? Seems so. jæs (talk) 20:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes - creating NN articles with useless sources (i.e. both the articles mentioned above) is a clear violation of COI - "A Misplaced Pages conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.". Black Kite (t) (c) 20:14, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Note here the contrast between Squeakbox's apparently successful $250 bid and the apparently-unsuccessful $250 from Sequoyah who made the contract explicitly conditional on the subject meeting WP:N and on declaring the contract at WP:COIN. I would have no objection at all the a contract like that which Sequoyah proposed, but am also unsurprised that Squeakbox's unconditional bid was preferred by the advertiser. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

This is not what I thought wikipedia was all about. I must say that I'm surprised and not a little disappointed that editors can be paid to write articles, of note or otherwise. Quite a business. Fred DeSoya (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some people will do anything for a few dollars. Is that really the kind of editor we want on Misplaced Pages, knowing that future COI problems may not be as easily detected? Chester Markel (talk) 20:35, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The problem is not the money in itself; the problem is what Squeakbox did to try to get paid. The problems are that: a) Squeakbox suspended hir judgement on notability and primary sources used in the article zie created; and b) that Squeakbox did not declare the COI, which would have drawn the attention of other editors to scrutinise the article. If squeakbox had acted openly (by declaring the full terms of the contract) and had followed editing policies (by telling the client "sorry, I cannot find evidence that you meet WP:N"), then there would be nothing to discuss here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Squeakbox's disruptive behavior is seeking financial compensation without any moral scruples. This suggests that the community cannot trust the user in the future. Chester Markel (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that Squeakbox ripped off his client by writing a crappy article. Beber Silverstein is notable. If Squeakbox had made any effort to create a good article that met Misplaced Pages standards, there wouldn't have been a problem. I don't know who the A7'd artist is. THF (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

"It's is a women owned Florida Certified Minority Business Enterprise,..." Ouch! I'd be pissed if I paid for that: he should have at least mentioned that it was notable for its time as a business owned by women, which is in the NYT reference. Since he is so open about who he is on the pay-for-edit site, and seeing the reaction from other WIkipedians generated by his writing-for hire projects, I would think that others would be less likely to hire him for this sort of thing in the future. You don't get the "bang for your buck", and others will seek reasons to delete it anyway. Caveat emptor Doc talk 22:21, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution: three month block

A three month involuntary wikibreak may be sufficient to convince SqueakBox not to violate WP:COI and lie to us about it again. This certainly isn't the first time SqueakBox has caused trouble on Misplaced Pages. Chester Markel (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary; this would be very punitive and SqueakBox is known to be a solid content contributor elsewhere. See above for my proposal of an editing restriction preventing him from writing articles on living people or companies, which account for nearly all paid editing. The Wordsmith 21:13, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Support a lengthy block; I'd prefer one month, but would oppose anything less than that. Squeakbox has clearly breached COI, twice, despite a promise not to do so again after the first time, and has also lied about the second instance when specifically challenged on it. A month is long enough for Squeakbox to reflect on the nature of trust and the fragility of reputation, and to figure out to apologise to his client for making a fool of her.

I am aware that SqueakBox has made many other good contribs, so despite the seriousnes of this abuse I would have supported a warning if it wasn't for the lie. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I think perhaps a restriction on writing articles on "living people or organisations, or any edits for which SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) for". Reword as appropriate, IANAL. That way, it also covers any edits which aren't BLP or ORG-related, but which are still discovered as 'paid'. At present I don't have an opinion about blocks. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I support that restriction, and the wording looks fine by me. As above, I'd like to see a block as well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I Support any restriction, the stronger the better, as I've always found him ... difficult. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Poll

Proposed restrictions

"SqueakBox is banned for an indefinite period from editing articles about living people or organisations, or any articles where there is a reasonable suspicion that SqueakBox has or has agreed to accept payment (or payment in kind) in exchange for editing. If an editor has concerns that this restriction has been broken, further sanctions, including a block, may be administered after a discussion at an appropriate noticeboard." - Sound good? No blocks just yet, but this is a good starting point. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why put up with this at all? Permaban, and revert everything in sight that could possibly be affected by such COI. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 03:18, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Permaban on what grounds? He'll just make another account, and we'd lose someone who's otherwise a good editor. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Permaban on grounds of spamming and falsifying sources, with reasonable openness towards unbanning on appeal after 6 months (or 3 if you must) on the usual sorts of terms. 3 months and automatic unblock doesn't seem like enough. I don't see likely heavy COI in SqueakBox's top 35 edited articles by edit count: Cannabis (drug): 507 edits, Javier Solana: 480, Rastafari movement: 479, Honduras: 268, Pedophile movement: 253, Haile Selassie I: 240, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero: 188, Bob Marley: 168, Spanish language: 157, Fidel Castro: 140, List of Internet television providers: 139, 420 (cannabis culture): 134, Giovanni Di Stefano (businessman): 119, Manuel Zelaya: 116, Jimmy Wales: 108, Child pornography: 107, Ted Kaczynski: 106, Gary Glitter: 97, Pedophilia: 89, List of European television stations: 89, Deaths in 2008: 85, Augusto Pinochet: 84, Deaths in 2007: 82, Tony Blair: 80, La Ceiba: 73, Video clip: 73, Crack cocaine: 72, Hashish: 72, Child sexual abuse: 70, Hippie: 69, Saddam Hussein: 67, North American Man/Boy Love Association: 64, Cannabis smoking: 63, IP address: 63, Efraín Ríos Montt: 62. On the other hand they don't seem like really tasteful choices, and it continues in about the same way. "There's no point banning that person since s/he'll just sock anyway" is usually a really bad reason to not ban someone. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Support. Though given his previous deception, if he's determined to carry on his paid editing antics I suppose he could sock round the restriction as well. Still, it's a start. Black Kite (t) (c) 04:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Something needs to be done about this since nothing has changed since I first brought this issue up over half a year ago. I've uncovered several of these paid editing articles that have bit the dust through AfD and SqueakBox has always assured me that he would be more open about this pratice in the future. He has not been open about it, calling the suggestion that he wrote his latest piece a "rash lie" despite being totally open about his connection to the SqueakBox account on freelancer.com. This would be a feasible solution to this ethically problematic practice. ThemFromSpace 13:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

We should of course establish that the Freelancer account is not lying about being SqueakBox. Rich Farmbrough, 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

It isn't - SqueakBox admitted that the same account was him during the previous ANI (see link in my first post). Black Kite (t) (c) 19:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I also can't find any link which conforms this that squeakbox was the owner of the please-make-fake-sources account. It's kinda crucial, so please can you re-post the evidence? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For background info, this particular incident was regarding the J-sKy article and was discussed on ANI here. I don't think SqueakBox was related to this case, although my memory might not be serving me correctly. ThemFromSpace 18:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. Here's the link: squeakbox confirms that zie did bid on the fake-sources job, but says zie withdrew the bid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Other articles

THF above is right - the two previous articles created early this year were fairly obviously non-notable at the time, which was bad enough, but this is almost worse - if this company is notable then he's clearly just tossing out any old crap in a few minutes to earn his cash. I looked at what he's created since March, and it includes Global listings (deleted as an A7), Diamond Ranch Academy (looks possibly notable), Pressure (reggae musician) (one line BLP stub with one source), and Alacan (probably notable). I have no idea whether any of these were paid for (and asking SqueakBox is pointless if he lied about the last one) but it does seem like an odd range of interests. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but Reggae music is within Squeakbox's previous interests.   Will Beback  talk  02:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Solicitation of fake sources

Before we close this, we should take note of the fact that the last time SqueakBox created an article for money () he went to that freelancer site asking someone to create fake sources he could use in the article. Here is the AN/I thread on the subject, and here is the request he made for the fake sources, mentioning that he is writing an "artist biography". This is the bid he placed to write the Zampedroni article, which was accepted. So, to recap:
1. A little less than a year ago SqueakBox creates an article on a non-notable Italian artist for pay.
2. On 23 March 2010, in and effort to have the article kept, he openly solicits "fake sources" for the article on freelancer.com.
3. On 25 March, he promises never to create another article for pay without being completely transparent about what he's doing.
4. On 21 July, an AN/I thread appears when someone notices his solicitation of fake sources, a thread to which SqueakBox never sees fit to respond.
5. On 3 November he creates another paid article, violating his previous pledge.
6. On 20 December he is confronted about this on his talk page. His response? "Stop talking rubbish." When shown detailed evidence, he replies "that is complete rubbish and I advise you to withdraw your rash lie. I havent received a penny for doing that article or any edits in connection with this subject." All clearly false statements. Although he continues to edit, SqueakBox has not seen fit to reply further, either at his talk page or on this thread. Apparently he thinks if he just keeps quiet it will all blow over like it did before.
I will also note that SqueakBox accepted at least one other project on freelancer.com, the nature of which is not available to non-logged in users.
Conclusion: Nothing that SqueakBox says or does can be taken on trust. He should be banned. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• I see no insuperable reason against honest paid editing, or honest declared COI editing of any other sort: COI is inevitable, for few people would work on a subject they did not care about. The COI from payment is no worse than the multiple other forms of coi that are in escapable at Misplaced Pages, and is, arguably, not as disruptive as some sorts of ideological commitment. Since we cannot avoid it, better declared than undeclared, for it can be judged more visibly and openly. I think we have a right and a responsibility to insist upon such disclosure . I think that those who knowingly & repeatedly introduce bad articles for any reason need to be prevented from continuing, and have therefore agree with the earlier suggestion for a block; though there have been many blocks for edit warring, the earlier ones were for other matters, and there have been none since 2008. therefore, a month seems appropriate. I suggest that any attempt to evade this, or to again construct equally poor articles, will be met by a discussion about a permanent ban. Additionally, any further article writing for pay must be declared; if there is evidence otherwise, we should similarly proceed to a permanent ban. The only reason I do not do the block immediately, is that this discussion has lasted for only a few hours, and at the end of a major holiday weekend; there is a tendency here at AN/I to be over-precipitate; in the absence of major harm, we need some time for consideration . For fairness, we also need some time for a response. DGG ( talk ) 05:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • We are talking about flat-out spamming. There's a big progression between "I get paid to work with computers, and sometimes edit computer-related articles (e.g. about algorithm theory)" (not much of a COI), through "I sometimes edit about products that I have used at work" (arguable COI), to "I write advocacy/spam promoting the products of the company where I work" (seriously bad COI). 67.117.130.143 (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
    • i think the creation of fake newspapers and other fakedsources is as erious issues. i have seen many articles in my area of expersietise (science and medicine and health) where a "source" was a link to someones blog or to a Google search of random terms; i think that this is a serious issue which is being ignored in favor of teh sexier and more effervescent paid editing issue. are you allowed to solicit someone to create fake sources for you to cite, regardles of whether or not you are a paid editor or not? User:Smith Jones 05:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, obviously this is the real issue here, the open solicitation of fake sources and bald-faced mendacity about editing for pay after promising not to without full disclosure. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:02, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for explicitly noting this, Steven J. Anderson. Writing poorly sourced articles for financial gain is a problem; soliciting fraud to accomplish it is a problem of a different magnitude. I agree with DGG above both that some action should be taken and that we need due time to consider that action, the end goal of which should be both to prevent further misuse of Misplaced Pages and to impress upon the contributor the need to adjust his approach to the project. This can't continue. Deliberately attempting to insert fraudulent sources into the project undermines everything we stand for in the worst possible way. It is about as explicit a demonstration of "bad faith" as I can imagine. :/ --Moonriddengirl 12:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Update comment Please see below. I can't strike anything here specifically, but I see now that there are some problems with the presentation of events here and that there seems to be no evidence that Squeakbox ever did solicit fraudulent sources. --Moonriddengirl 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Banning isn't yet the answer since he still makes constructive contributions when acting as a volunteer. The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions. I think the proposal above by Moonriddengirl is good first step. Of course if he violates this things may escalate, but we shouldn't go this far this soon. ThemFromSpace 13:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we really know that "The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions"? In the absence of auditing every assertion and claim in SqueakBox's edits to ensure that the sources they purport to cite are legitimate, and fairly represented, a definitive assessment of his contributions would be quite difficult. While such matters are usually taken on faith, the assumption no longer applies when refuted by definitive evidence of malice. SqueakBox has shown himself to be a thoroughly dishonest and unscrupulous editor who would violate WP:COI, solicit fake sources for sneaky vandalism, and who knows what else, all for a few dollars. The only appropriate response to such an immoral user is to be rid of them. Chester Markel (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not take a look for yourself? His account has been registered on wikipedia for five and a half years. He has about 53,000 non-deleted edits of which 28,000 are to articles. Mathsci (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Because I would be looking for a needle in a haystack. I assume that he wouldn't have gotten away with editing for this long if he routinely misrepresented or faked sources. If any fraudulent sourcing occurred, it would have been camouflaged within legitimate edits, much like he hoped to conceal his WP:COI violations. SqueakBox knows full well that we can't audit everything he's contributed. Chester Markel (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I will say something heretical, but I think if it is a needle, then it is not such a big drama. It's not like the rest of Misplaced Pages is perfectly sourced or something. - BorisG (talk) 16:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at maybe 100 diffs by now, mostly in icky subjects (checking out a socking theory that didn't hold up). I see some mildly tendentious editing in distasteful subjects, some random gnoming (not always well-considered, e.g. bypasses a redirect but slightly changes the connotation of the source), some reasonable vandalism reversion, occasional addition of sourced info (TMI?), some well-meaning but clumsy removals, etc. All of his editing is in a somewhat inarticulate style (non-native English speaker? Spanish-language ref added: ). I haven't seen anything I'd consider to be a substantial contribution of quality content, but there's an awful lot of edits that I haven't looked at. I agree with Chester Merkel that evaluating a history this large is quite difficult. But my basic impression is we're dealing with (among other things) someone with a borderline WP:COMPETENCE problem everywhere he edits. Turning Misplaced Pages into a work-at-home scam for editors of this sort is the last thing we want. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we really know that "The articles he hasn't been paid to write are generally of high quality, as are his non-COI contributions"? I've edited around him for years, and I would disagree with that premise; he is a tendentious and contentious editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe his edit history is more spotty than I first thought. Should anything be done about this? I for one still support moonriddengirl's proposal above. I think it's a good first step, although others may think its too lenient. ThemFromSpace 17:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really qualified to answer that: Wiki seems to have an unhelpfully high tolerance for disruptive editors along with a tendency to indef the wrong editors, and our standards for indeffing, blocking and banning are increasingly unclear to me. I'm just adding background for others to decide how to handle the current dilemma. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Comment My path has crossed SqueakBox's from time to time over the years, & while I wouldn't say I'm a friend of his -- just look at our interaction at Talk:Shashamane, which led me to take this article off my watch list (although I try to monitor all Ethiopia-related articles) & ignore any problems it might have -- I find his latest emphasis of activities not only troubling, but bewildering. SqueakBox is a self-described white Rastafarian, whose previous mentions on WP:AN/I involved his crusade against pedophiles/child molesters -- not the profile of someone I'd expect to decide one day to use his Misplaced Pages account to make money writing crappy articles. It would be just like, if I may make the analogy, finding THF brought before WP:AN/I for being paid to write deletion-fodder articles on Marijuana-related topics (e.g., "Joe Blow is an influential political consultant who was responsible for successful ballot referenda legalizing marijuana in 37 states.") IMHO, SqueakBox's recent freelancing is a cynical act to make some money from Misplaced Pages -- a symptom of WikiBurnout. And if I am correct about this, there really isn't anything we can do about him other than to indefinitely block him; he doesn't want to play nice with others here any more. But before we seriously consider this, I'd like to give him a chance to tell his side of the story; I've been known to make mistakes, but I don't want banning someone from Misplaced Pages to be one of them. -- llywrch (talk) 16:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

actually I had the same speculation about motivation as you, and for the same reasons. and, like you, I do not want to do an indefinite ban on speculation. Even if we are right, people have burnout, stay away a while ,either voluntarily or because we enforce it, and some return and do OK after the break. DGG ( talk ) 18:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from very strange defence of Giovanni Di Stefano on the article's talk page - and this perhaps illustrates one of the downsides of paid editing, one naturally wonders if the defence was paid for - I remember SqueakBox as a positive contributor. Paid editing, as I have commented before, is far from the worst form of COI, and the comment that we should somehow be concerned from his customers' perspective if he produced sub-standard material is laughable. The only matters that need attention here are (minor) it would be good if paid contributors acknowledge their potential COI and (major) the request for fake sources - and unless these were actually used there is nothing we should be worrying about. Rich Farmbrough, 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

I'm not suggesting sanctions on Squeakbox based on "his customers' perspective." I'm pointing out that, even with a COI, nothing stopped Squeakbox from writing a decent article, and that had he done so, I don't think we would have anything to complain about, even if he never disclosed his payment: a gap in the encyclopedia would have been filled, and we'd all be better off. It's because Squeakbox wrote a bad stub that was indistinguishable from spam that there's now a lot of hullaballoo. (This is entirely separate from the new, and much more serious, allegation of attempting to falsify sources.) COI is only a reason to scrutinize edits closely for NPOV and new articles for N/V/RS. There's nothing inherently wrong with editing with a COI, or even an undisclosed COI, so long as the edits comply with Misplaced Pages policy--edits that don't comply with Misplaced Pages policy are problematic even when there is no COI. And if the consensus is otherwise, we need to modify what WP:COI says. THF (talk) 21:27, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

If we're doing speculation, I'll go for "economic necessity" rather than burnout. I can sympathize: the economy sucks, decent jobs are hard to find, and lots of people have to do what they can to make ends meet. For reasons similar to NOTTHERAPY, we should sympathize with anyone in such a plight, but at the same time we must not let them turn Misplaced Pages into a spam sewer that other people then have to clean up. Rich F: paid editing of the form "Professor So-and-So gets a grant to develop a series of FA's about astronomy or biology, announces it on wiki, and engages in discussion about what these articles should contain" is one thing; spammers should be banned. 67.117.130.143 (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Spamming is bad, however creating articles is not necessarily spamming. The subject may be notable but have insufficient wiki-clue to be able to create an article that lasts 5 minutes. If they pay for the article to be created, and we decide that it is notable then we have gained an article we otherwise wouldn't have. It needs, of course, to comply with VERIFIABLE, NPOV, COPYVIO etc. But this is true of any article. And indeed the discussion above shows a paid editor (or one who wanted to be) setting that out as a pre-condition of work - which is of course the ethical thing to do, as the community may (should) insist that that is the case. All Misplaced Pages articles are stuff "that other people have to clean up". Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC).

If he was doing this simply for the money, assuming good faith would lead me to expect SqueakBox to have written a far better article. He knows better than this. The article which triggered this latest thread was something any run-of-the-mill PR flack could have created -- which would have either been greatly rewritten or deleted, & the author banned from Misplaced Pages. And as The Wordsmith & others have pointed out, when this problem was brought to his attention his first response was to say "Stop talking rubbish" & demand the person retract "your rash lie"; it wasn't to come clean & discuss the matter constructively. One only acts like this if one doesn't give a fuck about Misplaced Pages -- which that is why I have suggested an indef block for SqueakBox. Because if he is that alienated from or disillusioned with Misplaced Pages, there is no imaginable editting restriction that will keep him from harming the project or wasting other editor's time. -- llywrch (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry if this has been addressed already, but how do we know Squeakbox wrote the fake sources post? SlimVirgin 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  See here: squeakbox confirms that zie did bid on the fake-sources job, but says zie withdrew the bid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  thats fair then. if it wasn an honest mistake than it was an honest mistake. i see no reason to have him taken tou back and shot over this; the reason i reacted so vhemently aeanier was because i had noticed a spring of shoddy and obviously totted up or falsifeid sources in some of the articls I edited and I was concerned that certain editors might have been doing this on puprpose. it wasnt very likely but it was possible, and it wastes a lot of valuable time trying to read through sources again and again to make sure that they arent being misrepresented or faked. since squeakbox admitted his or her erroir, there is no problem between me nad him regarding this issue of paid fake sources. User:Smith Jones 21:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

  Okay, thanks. So if I've understood correctly SqueakBox wasn't sikkant, i.e. he did not write that. I'm glad, because that would have surprised me greatly. SlimVirgin 21:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

TL:DR nutshell: this section seems to be misleading, and I suspect that the header and timeline should be revised. I gather from his note at his user talk page that he had responded to that individual, bidding to create an article, but withdrew it with an indication that he may not have thoroughly read the ad. Not a stellar moment, but a pretty significant difference from actively soliciting fake sources!

It looks like what we have here is a contributor creating articles for pay that he should realize, based on his time in saddle, lack sufficient reliable sources to clear notability. This seems problematic under WP:COI, and it is particularly problematic that he previously indicated he would not do this and not only did it again but denied it: . This is a problem of a much lower magnitude than falsifying or soliciting fake sources, but still a problem. Paid editing is often a "caveat emptor" situation, but if we know that a contributor is creating subpar articles for money and particularly one who is selling his reputation ("On wikipedia I ma User:SqueakBox and with over 50,000 edits to my name http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/SqueakBox I have a thorough understanding of wikipedia rules, guidelines and policies as well as being well known on the project and with success at doing these kind of jobs" emphasis added), then it becomes a bit of a black eye for us if we permit him to continue. SqueakBox needs to either abide by his pledge not to sell his services as an editor or to disclose his behavior when he does so, and he needs to make sure that any articles he does create in this fashion meet all relevant policies and inclusion guidelines. --Moonriddengirl 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

How about a block to tarnish his wikireputation so he can make less money with it? It seems warranted based on the above. Tijfo098 (talk) 16:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(a) we don't block for that reason (b) I don't think you could tarnish this block log a lot further. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

i agree that we shouldnt block him based on just damaging his reputation since that is resprsehnbile. HOWEVER, i am concerned about weather or not we are legally obligated to notify his employers about his extensive lbock history. they might be paying him with the expectiaton that he maintain a good reputation and contribute aritlces that they can exploit since they willbe around for a while. if he has presented himself as a respected editor in good standing but he has all these blocks, i am concerned that he might not be as effective at his paid editing as he could be and that we might be held responsible for weakening his efforts and damaging his work product with these blocks. is there anyway to oversight his blocks so that they arent publically viewable until he has a chance to respond to each one? User:Smith Jones 22:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Failure to respond

SqueakBox has been editing today, but has not responded on his talk page or at this ANI, which he has been informed of. I started this ANI hoping that (a) he would respond adequately, and (b) if not, some action on the obvious problems may be taken. There is a danger that neither is likely to happen as the conversation has been fragmented, especially by the somewhat spurious/stale fake sources issue. Does the community believe any action should be taken here, or not? Black Kite (t) (c) 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

His failure to respond to the issues raised compounds the problem. Off2riorob (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Let's see: Serial mendacity (the "fake sources" stuff is particularly beyond the pale), refusal to respond to concerns, broken promises, etc... Whatever one's views on paid editing, this kind of paid editing shouldn't be tolerated. He's already demonstrated he's going to game the system. Eith block him indef, or unblock all the past paid editors and editors blocked because there usernames were obviously promotional blah blah blah (which is a lot more honest and transparent than this). This isn't even a hard one.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Has evidence been produced to substantiate the "fake sources" stuff? --Moonriddengirl 17:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• it turned out to be an misunderstanding, MoonriddenGirl. SqueakBox has since epxlained to the satisfaction what had happened and there was no tintent to deceive or present "fake sources' (whatever that means) into Misplaced Pages. SqueakBox is not legaly or policyly obligated to respond to WP:ANI accusations and no one can force him or control what he says on his talk page. I dont think that the spurious or fake sources issue hshould be held against him since it was blown out of proportion and taken out of context and apart from that he has done nothing wrong re: paid editing. this issue should be closed as resolved in my view. User:Smith Jones 21:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• The fake source issue is just one of the charges against Squeakbox.   Will Beback  talk  23:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• I think that's the point, really. Can we take action against a user for serially lying to the community? Undoubtedly his edits have been sub-optimal (i.e. the paid articles that got deleted), but is the mendacity (i.e. lying about not repeating that failure) deserving of a block or restriction? Because frankly, if that's not the case, can I unblock User:Thekohser, because the issues are trivially different? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Block. This is just not what wikipedia is for. Why should everyone else sweat blood to create good content when an experienced editor who definitely knows better is doing this sort of crap? Fainites scribs 00:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole dysfunctional system is supposed to be built on trust. Liars are abusers of trust, whether serial sockpuppet abusers like benjiboi or this guy, who hasn't been caught socking yet but is still a proven liar. Kick him to the curb. Teh community (whatever that really is) does this every day. Not sure why it's so hard to get rid of this problem. But if he isn't indeffed, i wholeheartedly endorse unblocking every account ever blocked for paid editing.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why it's so hard to get rid of this problem. Because a person with this number of edits is an asset to wikipedia. Thus it is a balancing act. COI policy is unenforceable. The problem is not paid editing, the problem is crappy articles on non-notable subjects. Maybe he needs to be blocked until he comes clean. - BorisG (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Block for at least a month, possibly indef. It's pity that Squeakbox didn't respond to the discussion here; not because zie is obliged to, but because zie might have have offered some reason for me to reconsider my support for a block. However, squeakbox has already confirmed that zie created a previous article with an undeclared COI, at the same time promised not to do so again. That promise has been broken, no defence has been offered, so let's get on with it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• has he logGed in yet?? is there any proof that he has logged into his account since all this started? DeeRD (talk) 03:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  Yes. See Special:Contributions/SqueakBox. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• That's good then. I was hoping to get his help on an unrelated matter and he has yet to respond to me. I was just concerned that he might not be logged in and might have become preoccupied, especially over the recent holiday season and overlooked this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeRD (talk • contribs) 04:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Calling for his ban is inappropriate; the idea is to get him to stop this unhelpful behavior, & if all reasonable efforts fail, then he is shown the door. This is why I recommended an indefinite block: indefinite as in "can be lifted at any time", not as in "an infinite period". An indef block might just work as a clue-by-four to get his attention -- which we don't appear to have. Instead of showing him the door, we give him the choice to either start working with the community. Or find another hobby. -- llywrch (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Bringing to a close

It looks like the community are in favour of a block, but I'm yet to see any solid policy basis upon which to make such a block. The problems people have brought up are:

1. Squeakbox has a tendency to make poor-quality paid-editing articles and has incurred the displeasure of the community previously
2. Squeakbox has abused the trust of both his clients and the community both by a.) continuing to make poor articles and b.) not declaring a COI (as he undertook to do)
3. Squeakbox already has a massive block log, so a short block (less than three months) probably wouldn't have an impact on his editing
4. Squeakbox isn't responding to this discussion and seems unlikely to do so

So, folks. The options, if we don't want to see this at ANI again, seem to be that we either "continue monitoring and fixing Squeakbox's edits" or we "block Squeakbox until the community can be sure he's not going disrupt the project by creating sloppy paid articles for cash". Which is it to be? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Previously I believed some sort of restriction might be the best course of action. But since SqueakBox is effectively sticking two fingers up to the community by not commenting, I would suggest an indefinite (not infinite, of course) block may be the only way to ensure a dialogue with the user. As for worrying about the "policy" behind a block, WP:BLOCK says "(blocks may be used to) deter the continuation of present, disruptive behavior, and encourage a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms.". Black Kite (t) (c) 16:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• this block wont interfere with his ability to comment on his talk page right? while i am uncomfortable with the idea lf blocking someone just to get their attention, it might be necessaryin this case since he wont speak to anyone about these issues. my only concern is that he should have SOME outlet to come to the table, at least on his talkpage if nowhere else, and that all discussion should be CC'd to his talkpage or redirected there to make sure that if he DOES change his mind and want to angage with us, it is at least possibl.e User:Smith Jones 17:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• My take on this matter has been slightly different from CMLITC's. SqueakBox was caught writing an article on a non-notable subject for money, & agreed to stop writing articles for money. Then he was discovered writing a crappy article on a notable subject for money. (And as THF pointed out above, had he written a suitable article instead, only those stridently opposed to paid editing would have cared.) When confronted with this discovery, he responded by saying it was a lie on his talk page, & since then has ignored all further discussion. Maybe there is no explicit policy against everything SqueakBox has done in this instance, & many would argue his departure would be a net loss to the project, but do we really want someone volunteering who is disrupting Misplaced Pages in this manner? If someone has a better solution than a block or a ban to stop his low-grade misbehavior, I'm willing to hear it. -- llywrch (talk) 17:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:TeleComNasSprVen

TeleComNasSprVen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

General lack of CLUE and misuse of the XfD process. His talk pages are riddled with declined PRODs and notes on how inappropriate his XfDs are by numerous editors; his XfD requests have become disruptive and a waste of community time. In addition, he has taken to removing other uses talk page comments on third-party pages here and here and then edit-warred with a sock accusation here and here; even though he has been warned in the past about such edits. Not to mention he's HOUNDed me on two different Wikipedias. I could go on Purplebackpack89 06:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• What are you looking for here? Nakon 06:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • I think he perhaps needs editing restrictions regarding the deletion process (to prevent additional unnecessary XfDs), and/or a block of some kind Purplebackpack89 06:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You might also want to look at this previous ANI thread involving him. It was suggested then that he be blocked if problems continued, IMO the problem of bad AFDs, CLUEless edits, and removal of other peoples' talkpage comments has continued Purplebackpack89 06:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I think he is looking for a siteban, given that this is the "community forum", after all. –MuZemike 07:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I've reverted the removals of those SPI notifications from other people's Talk pages. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Mu, my proposal is below. Purplebackpack89 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• Boing! said Zebedee and MuZemike (and indeed any other administrator reading this), you might want to go and see exactly whose user talk pages TeleComNasSprVen's edits to which Purplebackpack89 is fixating upon. Yes, that's right. TeleComNasSprVen is removing notices from Willy on Wheels' user talk page, where any sockpuppet investigation notice is, at this point some several years down the line and goodness knows how many "on wheels" accounts and copycats later, laughably silly. Remember Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels 2. We actually do deny recognition here. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Uncle G, my proposal is about a lot more than removal of talkpage comments (and note that he has done this on pages other than Wheels). It's also about the large number of bad XfDs, CSDs and PRODs he's made, some of which have been downright outrageous Purplebackpack89 05:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, the notices were pretty pointless - but they're at worst trivial and harmless, and he shouldn't really be edit-warring about them (and if there's good reason to remove them, we should get a better summary than "not a good idea".) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Notice where "not a good idea" linked to. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

This is somewhat based on what was discussed in the earlier thread here

• TeleComNasSprVen is forbidden from starting new XfDs, CSDs, or PRODs, but can still comment on existing ones
• Any failure to abide by that would result in a block
• Any additional removal of TP comments, or edit-warring involving TP comments, would result in a block

I'm not a one for making proposals, but you wanted one, so here it is Purplebackpack89 17:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• I don't really know at this point. Perhaps it's a CIR thing really, and I hate dealing with those, but I recommend writing articles, regardless of how bad a writer he/she may claim to be. Editing restrictions don't work well with the whole competence thing, IMO. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 21:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not a competence issue. It's excessive literalism. I've noticed it for some time, now, and have tried to nudge TeleComNasSprVen at RFD and MFD several times. TeleComNasSprVen reads and applies the rules, but apparently doesn't (or at least didn't) understand why the rules are as they are. So the application doesn't actually achieve the desired result that the rules are only a best written approximation for. In fairness, my general impression, albeit formed without in depth scrutiny, is that TeleComNasSprVen has been getting better at this, as other people have pushed back against xyr deletion nominations and explained why they are wrong where they are wrong. But again, note exactly whose user talk page TeleComNasSprVen is removing a downright silly sockpuppet investigation notice from before buying into Purplebackpack89's rather superficial description of the edits and proposal. Uncle G (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Still inappropriate for him to edit-war, and this is hardly the first time he's removed TP comments Purplebackpack89 01:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I think "excessive literalism" is a very good description. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Nope - I've seen that you have a grudge, but get over it. Rather odd timing, too; he hasn't done anything majorly wrong recently. Mono (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Um, his removal of talk page comments within the last 48 hrs. or so? Also see Betsy's point below; a restrictions proposal shouldn't be decided on the merits of the proposer. My "grudge" stems from his continual HOUNDing of me on multiple WPs, another thing to consider in his restrictions Purplebackpack89 22:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Stop citing those diffs. You have been told by Uncle G above in no uncertain terms that those removals are good; and I agree. Sockpuppet notices for User:Willy on Wheels and copycat? That's got to be one of the silliest things I've ever seen. T. Canens (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Um, I made that comment before Uncle G decided to evoke DENY. So, you're saying that Fr33kman's edit was silly? I respect him, and therefore doubt that. And the fact is, he still edit wars on removing TP comments and he still makes bad XfDs, PRODs and CSDs, and that's got to stop Purplebackpack89 05:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Didn't notice the timestamp, sorry. Yes, it is silly (notifying someone who was banned like 5 years ago and has had countless socks and copycats since then? ), and I suspect that Fr33kman did it because Twinkle automatically did that at the time. Do you have some other example of him removing TP comments? T. Canens (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Credit should be given where credit is due: It was TeleComNasSprVen who brought up WP:DENY, linking to it in the edit summary of the very first of xyr edits to Willy on Wheels' user talk page that you reverted. Uncle G (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support this proposal would ban his junk edits but allow good ones. Many ANI reports get filed by people who have some history with the person being reported; if we discarded all such reports I don't think it would benefit Misplaced Pages. betsythedevine (talk) 22:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

N23.4

N23.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've already posted this at AIV, but maybe some other eyes are needed, especially for future reference. At the language ref desk, a German user sneakily spammed by posting a link and asking, "What language is this?", knowing full well it's his own website, and he's trying to increase the click-count. He had posted this same spam link out of the blue at the Help Desk on the 15th, which was quickly reverted, hence he tried this different tack. Worse, though, is that an editor said when he clicked on it, his PC started to act up. That suggests worse than spam, it suggests possible malware. And just now, when someone un-linked it at the ref desk, the user attempted to re-link it. I think the user needs to be given Das Boot. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

While posting a warning on his page, I noted that the user has been spamming almost from the beginning and was told not to, but has continued to do so. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Move It (Culcha Candela) has no assertion of notability and should be speedied. Culcha Candela itself seems somewhat spammy. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor created that spinoff article about the "Move It" number for the sole purpose of posting a spamlink. I recommend deleting that article stub. As for the group's article, that could be something to be discussed in more depth. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Try {{db-spam}} for the song article, noting the link, and AfD'ing the group, again noting it (also) being a vehicle for a spamlink? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't AfD the band, they're clearly notable. Not sure about the single, but since it was a bare "was a single by ..." I've redirected it back to the band. Black Kite (t) (c) 20:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

"I think the user needs to be given Das Boot": You want to give him the boat? ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I indef'ed them a while back - I am now considering the content... LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That was kind of a cross-language pun. :) In any case, his boat has now been sunk, and editors are working on rounding up the flotsam and jetsam. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Hehe :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Marooning him (on de.wp, too) would probably be the best option. But, to keep up the Das Boot theme: Rohr eins bis vier bewässern! – Jawohl, Herr Kaleu! -- 78.43.71.155 (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I admit I'm coming to this a little late, but isn't this the sort of thing that an entry in the local Meta-Wiki spam blacklist? When this troublemaker finds that she/he can't link to this site, she/he will tire of this game very quickly. -- llywrch (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I suggested that on the ref desk page, though I wasn't sure where that blacklist was. There were two problems, at least. One was the spam link about that band. The other was a link on the ref desk pointed to some sort of German "one-hit wonder" page, or some such, that at least one editor thought was screwing up his PC, suggesting the possibility of malware. Both of the sites in question should be added to the blacklist. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

If it's only being added to the en wikipedia, then the local blacklist is where this should be added at WP:SBL ... but I'm suspecting this may be on multiple language sites, so blacklisting at meta:WM:SBL may be the better course of action. --- Barek (talk) - 21:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

i will notify seth at the next occasion. he was extra selected to deal with this kind of (german language related) spam problems here on en.wp as well as on meta & de.wp, where we have put N23.4 on the watch list (here). thx for your carefull attention and best regards --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 16:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Page moves and subsequent abusive move protections by Ruud Koot

Ruud Koot (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has decided to unilaterally move many pages based on his own reasoning located at User:Ruud Koot/Biography of historical scientist, and subsequently protected them from being moved by non-administrators. For example Al-Kindi has been moved to Yaʿqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī (a similar move was tried by the same editor in April 2007, and quickly reverted). A request to unprotect the pages was ignored, so bringing this abuse here to be dealt with please. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

• Moving them and then protecting them in their preferred version? I would say this admin needs to explain themselves very quickly, and I have done so at their talkpage. If they do not undo the protections (the moves themselves are another issue), they need to be undone for them and I would guess an RFC/U started. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Further - I note he's also set pending changes on the articles, despite the fact they don't have any contentious histories. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Yes, I was extremely pleased with how my experiment at Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī turned out. Unfortunately these articles about relatively "boring" scientific topics often turn into some kind of nationalistic battle ground. Please see the revision history of the mentioned article to see how effective pending changes is to prevent this unproductive phenomena. —Ruud 22:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • There is no apparent move vandalism prior to your implementing move protection at Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī, nor any rejected changes since you implemented pending changes protection at Yaʿqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī. Are you referring to another article? jæs (talk) 22:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
        • No stance on the moves, but I've removed the move protection and pending changes as the activity on all of those pages (with the possible exception of Āryabhaṭa) does not come close to justifying either move protection or PC, which shouldn't be being applied to articles that weren't in the PC trial yet anyway. Prodego 22:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
          • For example . My observation over the past few years has been that these biographies are on far to few watchlists to have them degrade in quality. In my opinion pending changes is a very good solution to draw additional eyeballs to these articles. —Ruud 22:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
            • Moving articles? Not a problem. Move protecting them afterwards? Not cool - this breaks the BRD cycle completely. I would suggest the Ruud reverts himself and goes to Requested Moves to gain consensus to rename the articles to his preferred fashion rather than trying this kind of unilateral approach. Exxolon (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
              • We're discussing this now right? In my experience not enough people are interested in these articles to have a good discussion. So I'm throwing some oil on the fire to get it started. —Ruud 22:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
                • *cough* 12.234.39.130 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand all that protection, lifting it was the helpful thing to do. Ruud Koot, whatever you had in mind, I think it would look to many editors like you were trying to heavily shield your own content edits with the bit. I would agree that in the aftermath you should also revert all those moves and gather consensus for them on the talk pages. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That would be like shouting in an empty room. I'd rather like to hear arguments on why any of the renaming where incorrect instead of maintaining the status quo. —Ruud 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As I said below, that has aught to do with policy. As for "arguments," you should gather consensus for moves like that. Please undo those moves and do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

But that is part of the problem here. The are low-traffic articles, but with an even lower number of people watching them. Pending changes would be a great solution for the types of biographies which tend to lose quality over a long span of time. —Ruud 23:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Low traffic and however many editors watch those articles have nothing to do with this. I do think you should undo all those moves forthwith and try to get meaningful consensus for them. In the meantime, you can always setup redirects if you like but I think it's highly, highly unlikely readers will be searching for those articles on en.WP by typing in all those diacritics. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

But al-Kindi still takes you the article as it has always done. But it might just give another editor the incentive to write al-Kindī or Yaʿqūb ibn Isḥāq al-Kindī instead, and increase the quality of Misplaced Pages a little. —Ruud 23:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. Gather consensus for it first. You should undo those moves in the meantime. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why should I undo the moves in the mean times? Where should I try to gather consensus? —Ruud 23:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Meantime. You're an admin and you're asking that? More than ever, I think you should undo those moves now. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly believe that reverting these renames would decrease the quality of the encyclopedia. I'm not going to do that. Clearly if someone else decides to rename them again I'm not going to revert war over this. —Ruud 23:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you laid on all that protection because you were canny worried about reverts. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:34, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The move protection is only helpful against preventing very inexperienced users from renaming an article without much though. Any other user could have easily asked the nearest administrator. —Ruud 23:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Who? You? Gwen Gale (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Observing this from a lowly user's standpoint: The moves seem to have been harmless, other than possibly skirting "common names" guidelines. The pending changes are probably no big deal, especially if he's the only one watching them. The move-protection is absolutely un-kosher. As I understand it, the only circumstance when protections are supposed to be applied to anything is when there have been problems; not pre-emptively as the admin seems to be arguing for. This looks like an attempt at "ownership" by an admin. I don't know when he became an admin, but even if it was just 15 minutes ago, he should know better. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Let's hypothetically say I've been here for a few years and during that time observed that:

1. Many of these articles get renamed once a year by a relatively inexperienced user to a name that is not an improvement.
2. Very few users besides me have these article on their watchlist and access to source material to judge whether this renaming was good or bad.

Would it not make sense to ask of that user to discuss the renaming first and perhaps even enforce this using move protection? In the end nothing is ever absolutely permanent on Misplaced Pages including administrator actions. I think it is clear what my current position is on this issue (but would love to here good counter-arguments), but I would really like to spark a wider discussion about this issue. —Ruud 00:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Have you in fact observed improper moves with these articles? If not, then you've taken the wrong approach. You should have taken your attempt to "spark discussion" to a project page that's connected in some way with these articles. Ending up at ANI is not the way to do that, as you could start heading down the path to ruin on wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, for example scientist which are ethnically Persian but published in Arabic often have articles moved between a version which does contain the article "al-" and one which doesn't, presumably by editors belonging to one of the two groups. Now all this renaming and fighting in the lead sections of the articles really distracts from writing on there scientific achievements, which is the important part of the article.

Realistically speaking, as I'm well aware that my position on this issue is rather controversial, I don't think my actions would be accepted if not discussed here. —Ruud 00:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've looked at these articles now. For someone who has been on Misplaced Pages since 2005, and an admin since 2006, to violate WP:COMMONNAME ("Articles are normally titled using the name which is most commonly used to refer to the subject of the article in English-language reliable sources.") and then use admin rights to protect them as a name which is directly opposed to that policy, and then try to defend it with "I'm clearly well aware that I'm doing something wrong in the "legal" sense of the word. However I believe my actions are morally right", suggests a little bit of a problem. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • You must have missed where it says that wikipedia editing is required to follow The Ten Commandments. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Common name on Google, or common name in academic literature? I think the "reliable sources" part means we should look at the latter. —Ruud 00:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, in the Al-Kindi article, practically all the references call him just that - Al-Kindi. Are you saying they aren't reliable sources? Black Kite (t) (c) 00:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • See the discussion at my talk page. —Ruud 00:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is pretty out of line. Either you hoped this would go unnoticed (in which case, this is serious misuse of the tools), or you used it to try to get wider input on the issue (see WP:POINT). Neither is remotely appropriate. And despite unanimous disapproval here, you are still defending your actions. Do you seriously consider your judgement to be so perfect? Trebor (talk) 00:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with Ruud, who has done a very good job contributing to those articles, and isn't always around to defend them, not only from vandals (and there do seem to have been some weird editing wars too). There was an incident at Muḥammad ibn Mūsā al-Khwārizmī (an important article about the inventor of algebra) that I came across only because of some weird accident. In the #Geography section there an image of a reconstructed map, that Ruud in 2006 managed to find in an obscure academic book and upload, and write about in the article. This was some really superb, erudite editing on Ruud's part, the type of thing that Misplaced Pages's high reputation rests on. Earlier this year, someone MfD'd the picture saying just "copyvio", even though the file had a perfectly good fair-use rationale and was one of the better uses of a non-free image in the encyclopedia. Only one other person (besides me and the nominator) commented at the MfD and that was almost 2 weeks later, so I think we might have lost that image if I hadn't happened to be looking at the article for some weird reason at that particular moment. Ruud is perhaps showing some WP:OWN issues, and the move protection was certainly inappropriate, but I take it seriously when he says not enough other editors are monitoring the articles and they are getting messed up. Could some more editors please update their watchlists and keep an eye on them? That might help alleviate the issues Ruud has brought up. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 08:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have much in the way of opinion on the naming of these articles, but if Misplaced Pages:ANI#Pmanderson and Byzantine names has anything we can learn from is that mass renaming articles with ancient names when multiple variations exist is bound to be controversial. Protecting to one's preferred version on top of that seems to invite controversy to an even greater degree. Tijfo098 (talk) 19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from an outside perspective, I have to agree with the numerous other editors: the naming issue can be taken up on the individual pages, but they should not have been move-protected, nor put under pending changes. The latter two should only happen when there is obvious, repeated vandalism, not "it could happen someday when no one's looking." It's rather upsetting that Ruud doesn't see it that way. — The Hand That Feeds You: 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Possible legal threat

Endeology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

According to the relevant policy, legal threats should be reported here. This case is borderline, so I think others ought to take a look. The relevant diff: . The page: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Endeology. --Danger (talk) 23:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as a legal threat. I suspect that what he's trying to say (though without providing verification) is that the FTC regulations allow wikipedia to set its own rules, and hence wikipedia is not subject to claims of "freedom of speech" and the like. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, I don't see it as a legal threat either, but I've closed the AfD as a SNOW delete, so given that the editor is a SPA who only edited in that area, the issue is probably moot. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, this one IS a legal threat. As you say, the editor is an SPA who will probably disappear. But if he doesn't, you may need to bring the gavel down. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 00:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
    • There is absolutely no inclusion, whether implied or explicit, of any “legal threat” in my posts whatsoever. The difference between a “threat” and a simple “reference to statutory writ” for the sake of reinforcing an argument is substantial and should be thoroughly understood before making such erroneous accusations. --Endeology (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • No, there's really not. WP:NLT is meant to encompass the implications of legal proceedings, so that people don't use that as a method of intimidating other users. Constantly citing your lawyer is not conducive to cooperative editing. — The Hand That Feeds You: 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • "Under the advice of my attorney, I have a legal right to edit my own posts in a manner that I see fit..." is an attempt to intimidate, and is also bogus. You don't have any legal "right" to edit anything in particular on wikipedia. And your comments are the kind of stuff editors get indef'd for. You're lucky the admins are feeling generous today. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with Baseball Bugs. Quoting laws and your lawyer isn't going to gain you ant friends here. --Guerillero | My Talk 07:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio edits, among other things, by Neptunekh2.

I was hoping this user would go away, so I didn't report it earlier. There are a number of problems with this user (such as constant edits like this, this, this, unsourced edits, wrong categories, the use of underscores rather than spaces, etc...), but the main problem right now is the copyvio edits. I tried to talk to the user here back in November, but it was just blanked with no comment. The copyvio edits I have found from just looking through the edits of this user quickly are these, edit/source, edit/source, edit/source, edit/source, copyvio notice by bot on a now deleted article. There are no doubt more, as this user have been editing Misplaced Pages for almost 2 years. Nymf _hideliho! 00:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are blatant copyvios (including from BBC News) and should be deleted as such. I have notified Neptunekh2 of this thread. Doc talk 01:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I already notified Neptunekh2 of the thread. Nymf _hideliho! 01:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

So you did: I missed it between the TB template and the SD template. Removed my redundant notification... Doc talk 01:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I ran across this editor for the first time this week canvassing to use a non-RS to call a marginally notable actress a Scientologist. May just be a WP:COMPETENCE issue if he/she's been editing for two years. THF (talk) 01:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Contribution survey for this user:

• N Martyn Godfrey: (4 edits, 4 major, +1099) (+400)(+207)(+1099)(+209)
• Alexandra Powers: (5 edits, 5 major, +894) (+228)(+151)(+894)(+252)(+328)
• N Squamish Lil'wat Cultural Centre: (1 edits, 1 major, +670) (+670)
• 2043: (1 edits, 1 major, +623) (+623)
• Mummy Juanita: (1 edits, 1 major, +604) (+604)
• The Seventh Coin: (3 edits, 3 major, +536) (+536)(+196)(+227)
• The Mummy (franchise): (1 edits, 1 major, +379) (+379)
• Katharyn Powers: (2 edits, 2 major, +337) (+337)(+182)
• Eve (Xena): (1 edits, 1 major, +333) (+333)
• N Toby Proctor: (1 edits, 1 major, +309) (+309)
• Iqbal Theba: (1 edits, 1 major, +297) (+297)
• 26th century: (1 edits, 1 major, +261) (+261)
• List of fictional female robots and cyborgs: (1 edits, 1 major, +242) (+242)

(I removed edits to 13 articles, these were mostly non-constructive edits. You can see the diffs in the contribution survey link above.) This does not pick up non-mainspace edits. MER-C 02:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The content I removed from the "Television in Botswana" category was cut-and-pasted from two different sources (one that he happily provided in the "Read more" section). Hopefully he will respond here to these issues soon. Doc talk 03:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Just commenting to keep the thread from getting archived as the issue hasn't been resolved yet. Seems Neptunekh2 is nowhere to be found. Nymf _hideliho! 01:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, they're around. Not sure why they came to me rather than here, but I'll attempt to find out... Doc talk 08:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll note that after canvassing at RSN, BLPN, and multiple editor talk pages, yet being told repeatedly by multiple editors that "truthaboutscientology" was not a reliable source and should not be added to BLPs, the editor (apparently) added it anyway. (I say the IP is the editor because of this talk page request shortly thereafter, which only makes sense if the IP and Neptunekh2, who made identical edits, are the same editor.) So add WP:IDHT to this editor's list of problems. The editor has also created two pages that were speedy deleted, Yllapa and More than weird. I'll WP:AGF and suggest a mentor may be helpful, but I'm skeptical. THF (talk) 11:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I am positive that the IP is the same editor (look at the use of underscores). We could try using a mentor, but I am doubtful anyone would successfully be able to get through to the editor. As you say yourself, any advice left by the people she canvassed were all ignored, as is this thread. I think it may be complicated when it comes to this editor (see the 4th top infobox on her user page). Nymf _hideliho! 12:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have previously (at least a month ago)warned this editor (who previously edited as User:Neptunekh) about copyright violation - so its not as if he doesn't know. As he appears to take no notice, I have blocked him until he responds in some way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

So it is even worse than I previously thought. Seeing 5 year old edits on that other account. Nymf _hideliho! 12:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

If her user page is to be believed... can I be her mentor? Please? It'll be strictly WP stuff we discuss: I promise. Doc talk 12:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Whoah! Easy thar boy, I say e-e-e-a-s-y!" Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

List of wordgirl characters, Emily

this is evidence of a dispute that has been going on for months. I have reverted a number of edits on the List of WordGirl Characters article about emily with no clothes, or her "going to the beach", and they just keep putting it back. I have told a few of these people that this has to end, but they insist on being annoying. Action needs to be taken, now, before this dispute gets editors blocked. N.I.M. (talk) 01:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've been following this; I think the only solution is protection Purplebackpack89 01:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Could you please do that, i don't know how, pluss, i'm not an admin. thanks. N.I.M. (talk) 01:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

There is not sufficient vandalism to warrant protection at this time. If a particular IP or editor persists in vandalism, you may warn them, and if they still continue take them to AIV. Trebor (talk) 04:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Treb, the problem is that the IP keeps bouncing around. The vandalism is the work of multiple IPs, and it's happened regularly for quite a while now. AIV won't work; we NEED protection. Full stop. Purplebackpack89 17:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really, perhaps head to WP:RFP. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with pb89, one more time and and i will ask that the article gets protected for a brief period of time. action needs to be taken now, not later, I would rather this dispute end now, now, right now. seems to me like these people are putting it there on purpose just to agrivate us, and it's not just ips, there were a few named accounts putting that in the article. This dispute ends now. I left a message to those people on the talk page of List of WordGirl Characters Please take action right now, before the dispute goes haywire. thanks, N.I.M. (talk) 18:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Someone has protected the article, and i tell them that they did a great job, thanks. N.I.M. (talk) 19:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor Science&HiTechReviewer

• Science&HiTechReviewer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (also editing as 96.247.28.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ronz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Science&HiTechReviewer is a new SPA who says he's edited previously . He claims to be using this account as part of an experiment for a talk he's giving at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting next month . I've had discussions with him on my talk page here, here, and briefly here; on the talk page of Naveen Jain here; and on his talk page here.

My discussions with him have gotten to the point where I'm removing most of his comments on my talk because of AGF and TALK problems. I've tried to continue discussions with him, but I'd like some help in de-escalating his behavior, as well as opinions on if editors should be creating new accounts for use in experiments in editing controversial BLP articles. From my perspective, he has a minor WP:COI given his relationship with WEF, he's using Misplaced Pages as a battleground, and he's disrupting Misplaced Pages to make a WP:POINT.

He's written a EAR request basically attacking me for how I've handled past disputes with Naveen Jain and how I've not changed the article in response to his comments. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Searching through the contributions, there's nothing too egregious from him, just a tendency to focus on the editor as much as the content. I've left a brief note about it, and hopefully there should be no problem; of course, you can follow it up with me, or here, if there is. Trebor (talk) 03:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. He's tried my patience between the attacks and the inability to recognize a press release.

Let's see if there's any fallout from his email to his personal friend, Jimbo. --Ronz (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It continues: Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Naveen_Jain. I'm going to avoid interacting with him for a day and see where that gets us. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And still more . --Ronz (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty uncomfortable with this situation and since the editor in question claims to know Jimbo, I have asked Jimbo to comment. If Jimbo knows what's going on and is ok with it, I'll keep my further opinions to myself. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 07:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

As I've not reviewed his edits, I can't approve or disapprove of anything in particular that he's doing. I do know who this is, and as he has offered to state his real identity, I'd have to say that I think that's a very good idea. Knowing me personally confers no special rights in Misplaced Pages, but neither should it confer any special difficulties, so I regret that my name has been brought into this at all.

I'm uncomfortable with "experiments" of all kinds, but at the same time, I think that the right thing to do, in all cases, before all else, is to forget about that sort of thing and focus with passion on the one thing that ultimately matters here: are there BLP issues involving editors who are following all the rules from a hypertechnical point of view in order to grind an axe against someone and write a negative biography that is full of errors and innuendo. Is the biography good?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, thanks for responding. I was asking mostly what you thought about the "experiment" (which I see as a breaching experiment) and if you felt the editor's identity and affiliations (with their possible attendant COI's) are relevant to it. I haven't looked much into the Jain article disagreement, but if there is a BLP problem with that article, then it can probably be quickly sorted by a visit to WP:BLPN. Science&HiTechReviewer's issues are likely caused by making the sorts of errors that inexperienced editors make (whether he really is an inexperienced editor or is just preteding to be one), e.g. not knowing the right ways to express ones' self on talk pages and noticeboards, etc. I agree with you that it would be good if Science&HiTechReviewer were to drop the airs of mystery and say who he is, though obviously we cannot require this. My opinion is that the "experiment" shouldn't continue in its present form. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there are any COI issues here, at least not to my knowledge. And as there is a sincere desire to improve Misplaced Pages, assuming good faith is the right thing to do. While I agree that the experiment shouldn't continue in the present form, I think the right thing to do is to educate him on how Misplaced Pages works, with kindness. Although he has edited in the past, he is not an experienced editor. I agree that the airs of mystery and experimentation are not optimal, but I am confident that he means well. Again, knowing me confers no special privilege, and I have not approved any of this ahead of time and wish my name had not been brought into it at all.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

"I think the right thing to do is to educate him on how Misplaced Pages works" Exactly what I was going to suggest. Science&HiTechReviewer wants to see how Misplaced Pages works in a controverial BLP article. Instead of trying to work with him as an editor, which is frustrating both of us, I think it would be better just to treat him as someone that is primarily interested in learning and observing, rather than learning to edit himself.

I will have little time to do this. Can someone help? The recent attempt to delete the article (discussion and AfD) is a good and rather simple example of following policy and the sources rather than swaying to strong opinions. Not much else has happened with the article recently. The discussions and editing on the pre-InfoSpace information went fairly well until it got sidetracked with notability concerns. Science&HiTechReviewer has pointed out a lot of different things to change - some are simple and similar to these pre-InfoSpace discussions.

I've no opinion on his revealing his identity. Would it help him relax and focus? --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Slakr Blocking of User:LSorin account with WP:EW but not further explanations

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Lsorin was blocked for one week by the administrator User:Slakr without being explained the exact reason from the WP:EW. I suspect that the administrator blocked, my account with regard of content of the article in conflict of interest and against the Edit warring policy: Don't use edits to fight with other editors – disagreements should be resolved through discussion. and However, according to wp:administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. As well I must add that all my edits were have been commented in the "reason" section of the edit or an the very long discussions on the Coanda-1910 talk page and the other pages involved. Part of the articles content discussions leading to the blocking--Lsorin (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Of course, if you chose to stop edit-warring on that article (and related ones) with your continual claims that it was the first jet-propelled plane (i.e. ), against all consensus, then perhaps you wouldn't get blocked repeatedly. Just a thought. Black Kite (t) (c) 12:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • My concern in this request, is not about the content! Please read again: is about the action done by the administrator based on the content, which is against the WP:EW policy. And regarding the content, consensus was tried several times, just to be ignored ( examples ). My continual claims that it was the first jet-propelled plane, are supported by the Good research from WP:NPOV Good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements. Please check the sources in my third consensus build-up proposal. Please join the discussions.--Lsorin (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you here? That was your 3rd block for editwarring, and your unblock request was hardly serious and was denied. And you've been unblocked now for 6 days. There's nothing here for Admins to do. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

To avoid further blocks I did kindly asked several times the admin which blocked me to point me out the rule I did break. Being blocked for content dispute is against However, according to wp:administrators, "Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. which admins are supposed to follow, or are they?--Lsorin (talk) 14:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

What administrative action are you requesting? I can block someone, delete an article, protect an article from editing, or unblock someone. Which of those buttons would you like me to press, and where, and why? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Since User:Slakr has never edited the Coanda article or its talkpage, how are they a party to this dispute or have a conflict of interest? I'm sorry, you're not making much sense here, I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 15:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the links to 'consensus' that this user has presented, and I think that part of the problem is that he's misunderstood the term 'consensus.' Consensus does not mean 'What happens when I present the argument and sources that show to my own satisfaction that I am right.' Consensus is what happens when the involved people agree together on the best version of the article. It looks like that has happened- I don't see anyone agreeing that your preferred version is the one that should be in the article. That happens to all of us sometimes. It is frustrating and disappointing, isn't it? If you've explained your reasoning and presented your sources clearly, you've done everything you need to do. A point comes when continuing to beat a dead horse does not accomplish anything but distracting people from the work of improving other parts of an article, and it's time to just walk away and work on something else for a while. It's happened to all of us, and we all understand how you feel; people only get blocked when they continue trying to fight a dispute which has ended. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for a very nice reply FisherQueen. Please don't mixup the problems. The incident here is not related to the 'consensus' build up on the content or the missing of it (check the current discussion related to the content and please join as well). My complain here is about the action of being blocking related to the content, which is against the WP rules and without being pointed to the exact proposition in the WP:EW or rule from that page which I did break, so that I can avoid that in the future.--Lsorin (talk) 15:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I have mixed up the problems. There isn't really an 'editing dispute' anymore- it's just you, trying over and over to get your desired change into the encyclopedia. That's stopped being helpful, and started being disruptive. When people disrupt Misplaced Pages's work, instead of helping, they do get blocked. Stop thinking of the exact words of the rules, and instead, think of the results of your actions. If your actions result in a better encyclopedia, then you don't get blocked. If your actions result in lots of wasted time for other users, lots of bad feelings, and no improvement to the encyclopedia, that's called 'disruptive editing,' and you will usually get blocked for it. Each block is longer than the previous one. Eventually, every user either learns when his edits are helpful and when they're disruptive, or else they are blocked for so long that they stop editing. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for your reply. So were is that rule which converge to my 'disruptive editing' written, except your reply above? I tough that WP is based on written rules. And can you please explain how my edits are 'disruptive' when my edits have been done according to those rules, like for instance the best and most reputable authoritative sources available listed in the talk page. If you can WP:AGF, then you must be able to understand that I trying to make that particular article better by following basic rule like the ones presented in WP:NPOV and WP:IRS. Please point me out the written rule, I did break with my 'disruptive' editing.--Lsorin (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. Those are both violations of rules. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:14, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The rule in question is here: an editor is blocked 'when his or her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia.' I think perhaps you are confused by the list the follows- the list is not a list limiting when people can be blocked, but simply a list of some of the most common reasons for blocking. Any time your conduct interferes with the creation of the encyclopedia, you can expect to be blocked. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:22, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless Lsorin has a specific answer to FisherQueen's question (above), it doesn't appear that there is anything for admins to do here. —DoRD (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what an administrator can do to another administrator if he/she is breaching the conflicts of interest or he/she disregards the administrator guidance in the WP:EW. My request was just plainly to be explained by that admin, the rule I did break to avoid breaching it again in the future with my edits. I suppose if Slakr cannot still provide any explanation of his action, then is the turn of the other admins to reconsider the status of this user as an admin or to give him a admin warning.--Lsorin (talk) 21:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

As you've been told several times above 1) Slakr has no conflict of interest here. 2) You have been blocked for edit warring and disruption before; if you haven't learned from your past transgressions maybe Misplaced Pages isn't for you. 3) Even if you hadn't understood what you have done before, several editors above have told you exactly what you have done wrong. Slakr is no longer under any need to explain anything given that a) you should have known and b) even if you didn't, given the above explanations, you should now. Refusal to listen when people tell you something is disruptive too. Let it drop. --Jayron32 21:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Per Jayron32 and specifically WP:INVOLVED, second paragraph, having previously acted in regard to your Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing does not preclude Slakr from doing so again - and if he had already acted for policy violations then he need not note as much when sanctioning you for further violation. Rather than simply repeat your allegations of conflict of interest, I suggest you click the links and try to discern where you have been in error. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU this is exactly what I have done for the last week, I read over and over again the WP:EW pointed to me and I could not find a single line to explain the action of that admin against me, but just he opposite. The closest to an acceptable explanation from my side, was FisherQueen's: here and I thank her as well for the explanation that my actions are not listed in that list of that page. That was never pointed to me before by anyone. Still I have doubts what is the definition of 'disruption' in this case, as my edits addressed points supported by mainstream. Is expressing the mainstream point in a bold way, trying to build up consensus and other WP endorsed forms of solving issues, considered a disruption in Misplaced Pages?--Lsorin (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked because you said what you wanted, and explained your reasons, and after many people explained to you why what you wanted was not going to happen, in a way that a reasonable person ought to be able to understand, you continued arguing that you wanted what you wanted anyway. Today, you are here at ANI. You said what you wanted, and many people have explained to you why what you want is not going to happen, in ways that a reasonable person ought to understand- but you are continuing to argue that you want it anyway. Is this also how you deal with being wrong in the real world? We can help you understand the rules, but if what's happening here is simply part of your personality, there probably isn't anything we can do to help you with it. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User:PM163 and 2011 Summer Junior Olympics

On or about December 3, User:PM163 created the article 2011 Summer Junior Olympics. He has since been creating attendant articles about various nations who are scheduled to participate at said games. There's just one problem; they appear not to exist. I've done multiple searches online and can find no evidence that they will be contested. I have tagged each of his articles as a hoax; he has proceeded to follow behind me and undo my tagging. I placed a notice on his talkpage about proper speedy deletion procedures, but he appears to have chosen to ignore it. I'm at 3RR on his articles now, and while I think I'm OK, as they appear to be vandalism, I'd appreciate some other pairs of eyes having a look. The vandalism appears to be quite extensive, and I'm not sure I've caught it all.

See also:

• Qatar at the 2011 Summer Junior Olympics
• Macau at the 2011 Summer Junior Olympics
• Palestine at the 2011 Summer Junior Olympics
• Andorra at the 2011 Summer Junior Olympics
• DR Congo at the 2011 Summer Junior Olympics

--Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 17:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried "Junior Olympics," and it looks, if I'm interpreting it correctly, as though there are several different events calling themselves the 'Junior Olympics.' In the absence of any sources, I'm not sure which evens this set of articles is referring to, or whether or not they'd meet Misplaced Pages's notability criteria. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I tried "Junior Olympics" in tandem with Istanbul - if it were truly an international event that would return at least a handful of responses, which it did not. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I just duplicated the same search- no sign of a Junior Olympics in Istanbul. I left a note about sourcing on the user's talk page, just in case I'm missing something, but it doesn't look promising for this set of articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The author of an article should not remove a CSD tag placed on it - you should revert such removals and issue escalating {{uw-speedy1}} warnings. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I can't find a single source — reliable or otherwise — that lends even an ounce of credibility to the existence of these supposed games. The "logo" uploaded here includes the text "1st Summer Junior Olympic Games" and a poorly-drawn imitation of the Olympic rings. I'm afraid there's really no doubt in my mind this is a mildly-elaborate hoax. jæs (talk) 18:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And, erm, the spelling of "Istambul" in the logo is a bit of a giveaway. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That, too. It looks like this might not be an isolated case: User:PM163/Christmas Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2011. jæs (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

He's got heaps of stuff in his user space! -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've tagged a number of his user pages as hoaxes, as they're clearly nothing of any benefit to Misplaced Pages - but I haven't looked at them all by a long way. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedied them all, plus a couple of other things in his userspace that looked like nascent hoaxes. There's more there that could probably go, but figured it was better not to get rid of everything at this point. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the history of Template:Digimon, it looks like he was also trying to insert a "Digimon Thunderbird" hoax into that template. Granted, I know nothing about this particular topic, but someone who apparently did caught that vandalism. I can't find any sources indicating "Digimon Thunderbird" exists, so I'm tagging that redirect he created for deletion. Looking over their contributions, I think this account needs to be blocked as purely disruptive.

Based on this, it looks like this is a(nother?) sock of User:Diogomauricio3. Should a checkuser be requested to ensure there are no further socks? He has been able, using at least these two accounts, to create hoax articles and insert subtle hoax material into any number of articles. It's probably best to ensure there aren't any undiscovered accounts out there, and potentially prevent future instances of this if we can. I'm going through his contributions to see if anything has made it through into the mainspace. jæs (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this seems to be a match to me. I was looking out for socks of Diogomauricio3 since he was blocked in September, but none have come under my radar until now. PM163 seems to be a clear WP:DUCK case with similar interests to Diogomauricio3 (e.g. Eurovision) and very similar editing habits with hoax creations both in the main space and user space. Diogomauricio3 was familiar with Portuguese and was blocked there for similar behaviour to what he was later blocked here for. This new account has also edited there and someone familiar with the Portuguese Misplaced Pages should probably alert them to this discovery. Given the strong evidence, I'm blocking this account for block evasion. Past experience suggests that if he is not blocked he will just carry on with hoax creation regardless of what anyone puts on his user talk page. I don't know of any other sock accounts for Diogomauricio3, though they could exist, so I have no objections to requesting a checkuser as well. CT Cooper · talk 21:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The only one left now is User:PM163/Speed Cars, which looks like yet another hoax - it gives specific dates for 2011 release and a rather unlikely looking list of cars, but there's no sign of it on a Google search - I've tagged it G3. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted it. It almost certainly was another hoax, though even it wasn't this user's creations would fall under WP:CSD#G5. CT Cooper · talk 22:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And no, this is not the first sock, either. These are also his:

• FGH23 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• FD45 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
• DF31 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

–MuZemike 23:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit war

{{resolved|Fluoride article semi-protected.--] (]) 19:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)}}

User Yobo violated the Edit War Rule and should be blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Yobol&oldid=404856495 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Yobol&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Water_fluoridation_controversy&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.36.251.228 (talk) 19:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Formal community ban of the fluoride spammer

The above report is by the single-purpose editor currently disrupting articles on the topics of water fluoridation and WikiLeaks, and Yobol appears to have been properly reverting their unwanted additions. I suggest that we consider a formal community ban for the individual(s) behind this mess, since they have gone from spamming and disruption to, now, attempting retaliatory interference against an editor who reverted them. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support for ban. This individual (or group enlisted to help them), collectively linked to User:Freedom5000 / User:Wikidrips, have been a real pain and waste of our time. The list of IP hopping socks is getting longer, the DUCK behavior the same, and they exhibit zero ability to learn. We're dealing with real fanatics here. All the IPs need longer blocks. 14 days doesn't cut it. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• BTW, let's be careful not to publicly describe exactly which of their ducklike behaviors give them away. We don't want them to improve their block evasion techniques. They have several identifying marks, but one is very unique. I've never noticed it before, and they do it often. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Should we start handing out rangeblocks? We've done it for less than this... KrakatoaKatie 03:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• The WP:EDITFILTER may be a better option. His tells are predictable enough for someone knowledgeable (read: NOT ME) to write an edit filter to catch him just about every time. One-note trolls like this are easy enough to filter out. --Jayron32 03:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban. Thanks to SarekOfVulcan for the quit protection of the page; this editor has shown he/she has no intention of following Misplaced Pages norms. I'm surprised he hasn't been banned yet, with all the socks he/she's created. This section may not get much attention with the resolved header, though. Yobol (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I've performed some header surgery to hopefully draw community participation here. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

• Yes I'm tired of this flouride crap going around. Revert and block on sight. ThemFromSpace 00:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I notice that the SPI has been closed, probably because of lack of use. Actually there is very much activity by socks. The latest: User:66.36.251.192, User:64.120.47.10, User:66.36.251.228, ad libitum. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - sap and impurify his precious bodily fluids. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 02:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support absolutely. KrakatoaKatie 03:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Jocular Decline (read: support) - Dental fluoridosis is a major problem where I live, due to the unhealthy fluoride content in the water. And I promised to do some meatpuppeting for perfect strangers. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 03:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Incapable of understanding how Misplaced Pages works, or why acting like a total fruitcake is unlikely to get an argument across. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support although noted the above suggestion of adding something-or-other to the editfilter if it's practical. Also, is someone very gently trolling them with today's featured picture, which is apparently formed "from the oxidation of fluorite ore deposits" ? :) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Spamming is not tolerated on Wkipedia. This editor has lost all of our patience and has caused enough madness to us users. With that said, enough is enough for this user. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support - I'm tired of reverting the edits. As soon as one article is semi'd, they move on to another one. ~ Matthewrbowker 06:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose – do you folks realize that in addition to fluoridating water, there are studies underway to fluoridate salt, flour, fruit juices, soup, sugar, milk ... ice cream. Ice cream, folks, children's ice cream?!? –MuZemike 08:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I pretty much fail at quotes... Nakon 08:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Hilarious! You hit the spot. This spammer fails to distinguish between science fiction and medical fact. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is pretty funny. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Dang it, leave it to MuZemike to steal my quotes! - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Note - The fluoride spammer. Really? Do we actually need a vote for this? No one is going to seriously oppose this, so end the charade, enact the "ban" and it's over. "Next!" Doc talk 08:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support - due mainly to fluoride lowering my IQ - but also because the editor in question has clearly shown that they aren't interested in furthering the aims of the Project. Shot info (talk) 09:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Community ban for User:Freedom5000 and his fringe POV pushing socks. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
• Support Community Ban. Tofutwitch11 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism IP

The I.P number 76.111.244.219 is something of a vandalism account, in that the owner(s) of that I.P have already tried to blank one page already. Could an administrator keep 1/2 of an eye on that number, please? Thank you for your time.--Graythos1 (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Troll?

Just noticed this user: Lamar burton (talk · contribs) In just two days he has done the following:

• Repeated abuse of {{helpme}} on talk page with LOLcat-esque grammar
• Nonsensical comments on others' talk pages.
• Addition of {{administrator}} to own talk page
• Creation of vanity article Lamar burton
• No other article edits.

I say indef block for unconstructive edits/trolling. What say you? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Obvious socking, in addition to the above complaints. I would have taken him straight to WP:AIV. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 19:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Sock of whom? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 19:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

We can ponder that at our leisure. I've blocked the editor indefinitely. Favonian (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note he added the admin templates to his page and the trolling on my talk page --Addihockey10 19:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I said "sock" because his very first edit was to complain about someone having deleted his article. Unless his first edit was that article, and since deleted, which means he might not be a sock. But either way, he gone. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 20:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

His first edit was to the deleted article. He recreated the article a few minutes later, so two of his edits are deleted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

You thought right about socking.  Confirmed as a sock of Quantum or not (talk · contribs), which is currently blocked as a suspected sock of Quantumor (talk · contribs). In the meantime,  IP blocked. –MuZemike 20:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, well. I was patiently trying to help what I thought was a newbie (see his talk page), though I had about decided that he was either a troll or had insurmountable WP:COMPETENCE issues. If he's Quantum or not he is actually able to write English, which I was beginning to doubt. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Any chance this is our friends User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back or User:Access Denied, who have docmented a habit of doing this sort of trolling? --Jayron32 21:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

MuZemike would have indicated such findings, We cannot simply blame every troll on them. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

True, but the specific behaviors in this case are a very close match. --Jayron32 21:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, first of all, Access Denied's IP is blocked, so it's hard for him to return with another sock; secondly, like ResidentAnthropologist wrote above, if CU had found any (strong or possible) connection with TFM or AD, I think the CU would've mentioned that. Finally, could you explain why you believe this could be another TFM or AD sock? HeyMid (contribs) 21:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, the use of silly lolcat and TXT style talking, per User:Bad edits r dumb and User:Wpeditmanbob2. The specific manner of conversing with others matches those well. Of course, it could just be a coincidence. And, has been noted before, there are ways to edit from new IP addresses. I am fully willing to accept that this isn't either of them, just noting that there are behavioral connections which are rather close. I am not demanding that I am right. I am merely offering up a possibility. There's no crime in offering ideas here, are there? I am perfectly OK with being wrong. --Jayron32 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Those two itms are hallmark of 4chan trolls, its difficult to discern them from each other. I only spoke up because I had seen those names dropped in serveral ANI discussions recently. No worries The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Either that or a Pickbothmanlol sock. His MO is to impersonate others. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 16:37, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I like the Star Trek theme between Quantum or not and Lamar Burton (LeVar Burton) S.G. _ping! 16:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Tërrnavicë

The note concerning the status of Kosovo in Tërrnavicë seems to be POV pushing, and I can't even find it in the article. Is this an appropriate note, and where is it coming from? Corvus cornix_talk 21:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The note doesn't seem appropriate for the article, but it doesn't feel like POV either. It's a straightforward statement of verifiable facts that doesn't give undue weight to a single point of view. The first step I'd recommend is moving this discussion to the article's talk page, since this seems like a routine content issue. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

IP editor accusing admin of abusing rights and pushing POV edits.

184.58.245.87 (talk · contribs) has just popped up and reverted a whole series of link changes that were made back in 2006 when Menomonee Valley was renamed to Menomonee River Valley, Milwaukee by admin MisfitToys (talk · contribs). His/her edit summaries accuse MisfitToys of POV pushing, vandalism and abusing admin rights. Personally, this article rename having been in place for four years, I am bemused as to why he/she would pop up now and start reverting things. From the edit summaries it is clear to me that this editor is intent on mischief making so would appreciate other admins keeping a watch or taking whatever action you think is appropriate. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I've notified MisfitToys of this thread on their userpage, although they appear to have last been editing WP on Dec 1st, so not sure if they will see the notice. --- Barek (talk) - 22:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

User Biker Biker refuses to discuss his/her actions by characterizing any disagreeable conversation on their talk page as "vandalism" and then scrubbing the page. I have been called "silly," a vandal, and my attempt at communication as "ramblings." This individual makes me sad. 184.58.245.87 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nassim Chloe Eghtebas (talk · contribs) a compromised account?

Nassim Chloe Eghtebas (talk · contribs) has only shown up once since 2009 prior to today, when they began vandalizing and creating non-constructive articles. Possibly compromised account? Corvus cornix_talk 22:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I'm seeing a person who's interested in math and not overfamiliar with Misplaced Pages. I think the recent edits are an attempt to create an article or ask a question about a math topic. I am not saying these edits are entirely helpful, but I think it's the same guy. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The same guy who twice blanked Aticles for creation and didn't respond to questions as to why? Corvus cornix_talk 22:49, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci disrupting the SPI process

Mathsci (talk · contribs) has develooped an unconstructive mode of behaviour in connection with banned user Mikemikev (talk · contribs), who has been apparently been guily of sockpuppetry on controversial Race-related article. Recently an SPI case was raised against BT35 (talk · contribs). User:Mathsci judged this case and falsely found BT35 guilty without the formality of an investigation. He has displayed an astonishing zeal in labelling alleged socks of this user such as 124.115.214.202, 166.111.120.63, 128.40.189.186, 86.189.26.144, Frostbite Alan2, Frostbute Alan3, Frostbite Alan, In with the old, TohsTogNeroc, 86.189.18.110, Frank Dickman, 86.177.2.57, Juden Raus, Grinkagronk and Suarneduj. It is very nice of him to act as clerk for these SPI, but this is hardly the behaviour of someone who is anxious to disengage from the WP:BATTLEGROUND over Race articles. It looks more like gloating over his defeated enemies to me. However, it is of more concern to see that in his amateur SPI detective role, Mathsci has actually impersonated an admin, leaving a bogus block message with a fake signature here. It seems clear that in spite of his avowed intention to disengage from these topics, he is lurking on controversial race-related pages and tagging anyone who expresses an opinion he dislikes as a racist sock of his adversary. Of course BT35 may be Mikemikev irrespective of what Mathsci chooses to think. After these facts were pointed out on the relevant SPI page by 212.183.140.59 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) Mathsci declared the IP user a sock puppet and used that as an excuse to delete the embarassing comment. This obsession with dancing on the skull on his fallen adversary is contrary to the spirit of his assurances to Arbcomm that he will stay away from this area and disruptive to the SPI process. 212.183.140.36 (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

This is frivolopus request by an IP which seems to be a proxy account. This is very likely to be banned user Mikemikev (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), as in the past the account was used in late May for editing articles covered by WP:ARBR&I. Disruptive postings of this type by Mikemikev are mentioned in the ArbCom findings. Mathsci (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems quite possible. Is Mikemikev banned or just indef blocked? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

After long enough, and enough socking, it makes little difference. --Jayron32 22:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Site-banned for 12 months. The "impersonating an admin" charge is just barely plausible -- Mathsci signed the block notice as Maunus, but it was several minutes after Maunus had blocked the account, so it wasn't a "bogus block message". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Maunus left the message on the user page by mistake and I copied it in its entirety to the user talk page as "housekeeping". The diffs are at the SPI report. Mathsci (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, makes perfect sense that way. Thanks. :-)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Here are the diffs Mathsci (talk) 22:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

So, to translate the OP, "I'm a banned user. Please pay attention to me" ? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to blocking them per WP:BOOMERANG? --Jayron32 22:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

If no one minds, I've taken the liberty of blocking the ip. He appears to be using several ips, so I suppose the only effect this will have is to send the message that he's still banned, and we can just keep removing his edits and blocking his ips until he gets bored and goes away, or gets old and dies. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Looks like Mathsci copied the block template (with Maunus's signature) from the user page to the user talk page. I can see why that was confusing and probably not a good idea in retrospect, but it doesn't come across as impersonation to me. I'm all in favor of banning Mikemikev if he's not already banned. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the community ban, ArbCom site banned him for 12 months. Mathsci (talk) 22:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like he was indef blocked as a result of an AN/I discussion, then site-banned by ArbCom for 1 year as a result of the CCR&I arbitration. I think a permanent community ban would be justified. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. He was blocked indefinitely on August 18 by SarekOfVulcan for making a string of personal attacks (a week before WP:ARBR&I closed). Here's the ANI report ... and this is the diff on ANI that precipitated the block. Mathsci (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean WP:ARBR&I not WP:ARBCC, let's not get carried away :) Just as a note, usually when reporting supsected Mikemikev sockpuppets I do so by requesting a checkuser. I have made several, some of which Mikemikev has listed above. All my checkuser requests have been confirmed and are listed on the confirmed sockpuppet page. At the moment, during the Christmas-New Year break, it seems conceivable that Mikemikev is with his family or with friends, i.e. editing elsewhere than normal. That would explain the latest set of edits. The editing style confirms the editor, if not the precise geographic location and the operating system/computer (a Christmas present?). Mathsci (talk) 23:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, R&I, not CC, my error. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev's also likely responsible for the disruptive edits to the articles by open proxy IPs like this one: detected here Professor marginalia (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Other edits via the Vodafone proxy 212.183.140.***

• 1:
• 52:
• 59:

Mathsci (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Formal Community ban for Mikemikev

Mikemikev for Socking and Evasion of a ARBCOM site ban and is hearby banned from editing the English Misplaced Pages

Support as nom The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Support on the basis of the user's contribution history and repeated disruption of the project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Support (I was involved in the arbitration page, and I opposed Mikemikev's edits at the time) Racism, insulting other editors, trying to impose his personal opinions in the article, pretending repeatedly to be someone else while block-evading from an IP, inability to simply drop an issue and calm down, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Support "Juden Raus"/"suarneduj" as well as other antisemitic confirmed socks, such as Oo Yun (talk · contribs), indicate someone whose sole aim is to offend others and cause disruption. Mathsci (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I see no sign that this editor is here to improve the encyclopedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support WP's wasted enough time dealing with him already. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Endorsed; no-one who uses up to 29 socks/IPs to evade an ArbCom ban should be welcome here, period. --Dylan620 02:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Thought he was already under both a community and an arbcom ban, but if a third ban makes it easier to remember, then go for it. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support though unneccessary. Could anyone see him being allowed to edit even in absense of a formal vote? --Jayron32 02:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, Lord, I forgot that was what kicked the indef block off. Support like anything. He's under an Arbcom 1-year ban and an unilaterally-imposed indef block for threats of violence. Imposing a community ban would mean that he's got to convince the community that he can come back and be a useful editor -- not just a single unblocking admin. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support I don't recall any useful edits from this user, even when they were calm. Any future presence is certain to be disruptive. Johnuniq (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Support Although he's already banned by ArbCom, so this isn't really adding anything new. Nevermind, I see the Arbcom ban was only for a year. Lets make this one a permaban. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:TenPoundHammer

TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

On December 27 I asked User:TenPoundHammer to tone down his edit summaries and to stop removing {{Expand}} from articles while the template is at DRV (per WP:TFD/H ). Unfortunately, despite my efforts and those of User:Boing! said Zebedee, TenPoundHammer has continued both behaviours.

In these diffs TenPoundHammer yet again "screams" at other editors, just as he was doing before. In this diff TenPoundHammer states "Say that again? All I heard was "blah blah blah, WP:ITSNOTABLE, I hate the nominator."" in reply to User:Newyorkbrad.

In this diff he again calls someone a "moron" and in this diff he states "fanwank" which is the same sort of behaviour he exhibited before in calling other editors a "dumbass". Other edit summaries such as "tell me what lapse in judgement made you think some freaking BLOG would make a reliable source... are you out of your mind?!" and "fail" are also troubling.

Despite asking TenPoundHammer not to remove {{Expand}} while it is at DRV, he has continued to do so while continuing the use of misleading edit summaries such as "fix" and "driveby". In checking each of these articles, the maintenance template placement seemed to have been done both in good faith and justifiable based on the article length. (Note that even if this template is "deleted" it won't simply be "removed" in bulk from articles.)

I also noticed TenPoundHammer has continued other past behaviours including making very questionable AfD nominations, such as Mashable and has also continued to repeatedly replaced speedy deletion tags after they have been removed by administrators. I happened to see this very issue of TenPoundHammer's speedy deletion tagging of {{Freshman Members of Congresses}} brought up on User:DGG's talk page just a few days ago.

While I don't have the time or patience to go through TenPoundHammer's full contribution history of the last week or so, especially as he often makes many edits per minute, I think the above diffs should be more than sufficient to demonstrate some of the continued problems. I don't know what needs to be done here, but given repeated past AN/I discussions regarding TenPoundHammer's behaviour, he clearly still fails to understand that this stuff is simply not acceptable behaviour. --Tothwolf (talk) 23:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Despite lots of undoubtedly good work, he does seem to be in a particularly bad mood at the moment and is being rude and lashing out at people for no good reason - after my comment here, his response to me is here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

And only yesterday, he was being abusive to JohnCD, here -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

The problem is that TPH makes lots of edits that benefit Misplaced Pages with less than optimum edit summaries (i.e. the fanwank one - it was, indeed, an edit removing an unsourced sentence which consisted entirely of unsourced fanwank, but, hey, this is a collegial environment). If you can find a major issue with one of TPH's edits that is seriously out of order, then warn him, but I'm not entirely sure why we're at ANI yet. What admin action is required? Black Kite (t) (c) 23:50, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we need some way of convincing him to stop being so nasty to people - he does lots of great work, but going round calling people "dumbass" and "moron" is surely not what we want. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That's the point I'm making - if his edits are out of line, warn him. As far as I can see, there are no warning/incivility/whatever comments on his talkpage except the one pointing him to this ANI. One would've thought if his editing had been so uncollegial that there would've been some sort of attempt at negotiation before the inevitable ANI. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No offense, Black Kite, but if you don't see any incivility warnings in his talk page history, you must not be looking that hard. I've got no desire to get TPH "in trouble", but it would be nice if he'd knock off stuff like this. 28bytes (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Would be great, but WP:WQA is the place for this, not ANI - again, what administrator action is being requested? Black Kite (t) (c) 01:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, people asking for help often don't know what the answers are - does it not seem reasonable to come here and ask "Can any admins suggest or do anything to help?" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

He often does very good work here --he is extraordinarily effective at finding articles that certainly ought to be deleted. But he would be so much more effective if he did not also nominate for deletion articles that there is no reason to delete--I doubt any editor has a higher proportion of AfD nominations that are kept, often by snow. I see this as the same sort of hasty judgement that leads to unreasonable edit summaries. We're here because these matters have been mentioned to him repeatedly over a very long time, and at AN/I. . Everyone else I can think of who makes AfD nominations rejects as frequently learns from it. He hasn't. We're here in the hope that sombody can find a suitable way to communicate with him. Nobody is at this point asking for sanctions. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

We just want him to acknowledge these issues and work toward them not happening, correct? Yeah, i've had some run-ins with TPH, generally at AfD. I will admit that he does get rather hostile whenever I end up voting keep and give references to show why. Silverseren 00:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm just seeing so much idiocy around here anymore. Things like !voting "keep but source it better" and then failing to show that any sort of sources exist. Then the article gets kept, nominated again two years later, and everyone says "keep but source it better" again failing to provide sources. Other things too — like an experienced user taking a merge request to AFD, n00bs adding "Character X's socks don't match in this scene"—style trivia to movie and TV articles, people insisting that episode articles should be automatically kept just because the show is notable. Admins who are afraid to invoke WP:IAR because they think someone might protest to the deletion of a template that has only a single redlink on it. "Speedy" deletion that takes longer than a full day before someone nukes it. Niceness has gotten me nowhere with these and countless other issues, so maybe some of us just need a slap with something more serious than a trout. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 01:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

TPH, your perception is spot on.But you need to realize something, and to be fair it took me years to come to terms with this myself: Misplaced Pages is essentially a social community with the encyclopedic content being an incidental by-product. Don't emphasize content over the social aspects. That way madness lies. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

And sometimes it's that that gets to me too. I think you'd really have to be thin skinned to take offense to an edit summary of "Fail", for instance. And the thing about not wanting to invoke IAR would sort of fall under the social part too — it seems I have to beg and plead to get any administrative action done, no matter how trivial (mostly G6 deletions, which I've seen sit for upwards of a full day). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You could try being a little less impatient and a little less shitty - if being nice doesn't work, being shitty is even less effective. And there's really no urgency for most of the deletions you request - who cares if it takes a day to delete something harmless? You work at a very fast pace and spend many hours here, but you can't expect everyone else to do the same and work at the same pace as you. Misplaced Pages and everyone associated with it are not here to jump at your every command, and other people have different takes on things. In every recent fight you've had that I've seen, the other parties have been civil and have explained their thoughts to you - it's simply not the case that you're always right and have to be obeyed -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PS: I agree that "Fail" isn't an offensive summary (not useful or informative, which is what they're supposed to be, but not offensive) - but what about "dumbass", "moron", and all the other shitty abuse you dish out? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PPS: Re "Admins who are afraid to invoke WP:IAR because they think someone might protest to the deletion of a template that has only a single redlink on it.": I saw that one, and it was nothing to do with the admin being afraid of anything - the admin simply thought it would be wrong to invoke IAR for CSD purposes because CSD is deliberately tightly defined, and they explained that quite clearly to you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

To echo Black Kite's (at least) two questions above, what admin action is being requested here? —DoRD (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know precisely - I can only speak for myself, and all I'm here asking is "Can any admins here suggest anything that might help with this situation?" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 05:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that in general, TenPoundHammer has made a lot of positive edits. My own past interactions with him have largely been positive, but a diff such as this which User:28bytes partially linked to above is not an example of appropriate behaviour. If a new or otherwise non-established editor were to make such an edit, he would more often than not be blocked outright for disruption.

This AN/I discussion from November 2010 (which seems to be a continuation of this AN/I discussion) includes quite a bit of discussion regarding problematic behaviour from TenPoundHammer.

As far as warnings go, in keeping with don't template the regulars, many concerns have been raised by others on TenPoundHammer's talk page without using templated warnings. If he is unwilling to listen to others, including both administrators and non-administrators alike, then WQA would not really be helpful either. Somehow other editors need a way to communicate to TenPoundHammer that the general incivility, hostility, and combativeness, as well as the language of his edit summaries needs to change. --Tothwolf (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to add to that, this behavior has been going on for years, and I think it's obvious to anyone with any familiarity that WQA would be a waste of time. Now, I might be misjudging it, but I actually think it's getting worse. When I first encountered TPH several years ago, he was often curt and brusque and made many bad AfD reports, but I don't remember the degree of incivility and abuse that we're seeing now. Over the past month or so, he seems to have been getting into an increasingly bad mood. And that really can't be good for him either - are we seeing signs of burnout? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I definitely see signs of WikiBurnout here. (I suspect every long-time contributor goes thru the Slough of Despond over Misplaced Pages. Some emerge at the other end with a far less positive attitude towards this online encyclopedia idea & what it has accomplished; some never emerge.) However, the best place to discuss TenPoundHammer's behavior would be in a RfC/U, not a WP:AN/I thread. -- llywrch (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Never had a problem myself with Hammer and I have encountered him more than once, especially early on. Maybe he is getting burned out: I don't know. He's got a "spitshine" clean block log (except for the "joke block") for a long time here. I agree with those above who think this needs another venue. Doc talk 10:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I think you're probably right, and I guess RFC/U is the proper place. The only trouble is I'd feel bad about doing it - I know it's still "informal", but it does feel like cranking it up a notch, and TPH is someone I genuinely respect for his long-term contributions. I think I'd rather just leave it be for now, myself - I've had my say here, and we've been able to tell TPH what we think is wrong. Hopefully he might think about it, and accept that these are the words of well-meaning Misplaced Pages colleagues, and we can see how things go. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Skylar Christine and Sugoi Neko Girls!

If you take a cursory glance at the history of the hoax page, CSD, Sugoi Neko Girls!, you'll see User:Skylar Christine repeatedly removing the deletion tags and attempting to rewrite the article. This is an article she is creating for her own personal anime, and she has been warned repeatedly about hoaxes and removing deletion tags. Suggest block. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 00:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I left her a message about why her manga is just not going to have a manga, but someone had already dropped a level 4 warning there (I got several edit conflicts). --Enric Naval (talk) 00:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I had no idea an edit war with an 11 year-old girl would be so damned painful! OMG! Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) She has also vandalized Shugo Chara! by claiming the work as her own. Perhaps that particular edit should be RevDeleted. Give her(?) history, I don't think she is interested in anything other than promoting herself. —Farix (t | c) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Continued harassment by User:Pieter Kuiper

• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#Stalked for a long time
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#SergeWoodzing
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive618#Confusing behavor from User:SergeWoodzing - is this truly correct?
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive518#Pieter Kuiper
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive606#User:Pieter Kuiper

As seen here and below that entry, the user continues to stalk and harass me with rancorous retaliatory actions even though I have asked him several times to stay off my talk page and leave me alone. I reported his personal agenda before here but not one administrator tried to help us stay away from each other. Mr Kuiper needs to stop harassing me and somebody neutral needs to tell him to leave me alone. The latest twist is that he uses frivolous deletion requests as an excuse to show me that he does not respect my wishes to stay off my talk page. He is not doing anything particularly valuable or constructive for WP, just trying his damndest to irriate. Being extremely headstrong and tedious, though not very good at English or knowledgeable about older English literature, he is almost always proven wrong eventually about the issues he brings up regarding English exonyms and such, if the editors he attacks and annoys have the time and energy, and patience with his constant sarcasm and ridicule, to research them and reply. I am losing it. It is typical for him to flaunt his disrespect for others. The basic current problem is that he is blocked on Commons, where I supported his blocks this year along with several other editors, so now he has come here to cause trouble instead. SergeWoodzing (talk) 00:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have a general rule that whenever an editor starts with the STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE stuff, he is the source of the problem. I find little here to make me change my mind. If the deletion requests were "frivolous", it's doubtful that the AFDs would result in a consensus to delete.

  That said, User:Pieter Kuiper is indeed banned on Commons for harassment of other editors, which means that we need to look at this more closely than I would normally bother with. SergeWoodzing, can you provide some evidence of actual harassment done on English Misplaced Pages? Not nominating articles for deletion that you wish had been kept, but actual harassment?—Kww(talk) 01:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

  • The block reason on Commons is a gross exaggeration - I will only admit incivility. All I did was to respond to a person calling me names on my talk page with a similar vulgarity translated to Dutch. Per the usual differences in wiki-clout, I was the only one getting blocked for that exchange. So now I am editing on other wikipedias a bit more than if I could have contributed on Commons. There is no reason for these repeated complaints by Woodzing. The last one was just closed a few days ago. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • The previous ANI from last weekMisplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive658#Stalked_for_a_long_time has some diffs. Here and on Commons, the repeating pattern is that PK gets into a dispute with someone who is editing poorly with good intentions, and then takes them to task for it in a rather abusive way. PK is smart and a good contributor, and he is usually basically right about the underlying issues, so it's mostly a civility problem and maybe to some extent a hounding problem. I wonder if some other editors could give SW some gentler guidance than PK has been giving, so that PK can leave SW alone for a while. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Looking at some of the previous incident reports on this noticeboard, and at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Carl of Vermillandia, it seems that a long-standing situation, resulting from something on the Swedish Misplaced Pages, has deteriorated to the extent that Pieter Kuiper can call article content a hoax and a BLP problem and SergeWoodzing will immediately cry "I'm being personally attacked.". SergeWoodzing is not coming across as entirely the victim in this, at this point. Uncle G (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Erasing notices and warnings

Per WP:DRC and Misplaced Pages:User_page#Removal_of_comments.2C_notices.2C_and_warnings I have the ability to blank my userpage. This editor User talk:Daipenmon keeps reverting my blanking of my page. Communication with the editor has been ignored. 94.173.8.12 (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've asked him not to. Prodego 00:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Note: shortly after your post, he blanked his own talk page and then re-restored the IPs talk page. I've left a much more pointed warning to Daipenmon, as the continued restoration of the talk page content despite requests to stop and without engaging in any discussion on that action is, at this point, simply harassment. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

That said, IP, your edits are not acceptable by any stretch. Ravensfire (talk) 01:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Such as , , and where you see how big and how many different ways you can write the N word, and this edit summary . Heiro 01:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I believe the No Personal Attacks policy also extends to edit summaries, so this summary referring to "f&#ktards" (my 'censoring'!) is also not wanted. - 220.101 talk 02:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC) Whoops, Same summary. - 220.101 talk 02:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I just gave 94.* a 4im on improper humor, and pointed them to WP:BOOMERANG. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) Indeed, bringing a user to ANI over a policy violation while breaching policy in a rather more disruptive way = WP:BOOMERANG. GiftigerWunsch 02:36, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Except there's no boomerang, as the OP remains unblocked. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 03:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This IP is a cafe open WiFi network in Central Edinburgh. Warnings are being issued to the wrong users. 94.173.8.12 (talk) 03:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The IP address got the warnings, if the address is the source of significant vandalism, it may still be warned and blocked. If you don't want the warnings, create an account of your own, here is a simple link. Heiro 04:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It was getting to be boring, so l stopped already--Daipenmon (talk) 16:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:IbnAmioun and anon COI and civility issue re Taleb-related articles.

(Previous discussion: ) The conflict of interest problem at Nassim Nicholas Taleb has resurfaced. To recap, IbnAmioun (talk · contribs) claims to represent Taleb on Misplaced Pages. See User:IbnAmioun. All his edits are to Taleb-related articles, and generally in the direction of inflating Taleb's reputation. There's something of a WP:OWN problem there; it's come up here a few times.

The current issue is at Empirica Capital, where, in this edit , IbnAmoun removed a data table of fund returns from Business Insider, which reproduced an image of a statement from the fund. The actual numbers aren't as flattering to Taleb as his own public statements, which focus on the "good years" for his fund. There's a legitimate content dispute over how to calculate the annual returns from the figures available, but that's not justification for deleting the whole table.

There's also something of a civility problem. I generally ignore personal attacks, but I'm getting rather tired of this series. The latest round of insults come from 64.131.190.231 (talk · contribs):

• "... Some guys are very vehemently trying to watch his back and sing his praises while others specially John Nagle are hell bent on crucifying him. I don't how much damage the well-wisher-fanboys can suffer and I don't know how much law you guys know but there are causes for lawsuits based on obvious slander. ... Thanks ~JD"
• "Its obvious that this failed nerd Nagle is the biggest Talib fan or is jealous of Talibs fame and wealth. Stop obsessing with his fund returns ..."
• "It is obvious that this nerd Nagle is a celebrity stalker and a nobody who is happy that by doing this nonsense he will show up in a google search with talib"

There's the possibility that 64.131.190.231 (talk · contribs), who seems to edit in concert with IbnAmoun, is a sock. But, regardless, I'd like to ask for a civility block on that anon IP, which edits only Taleb articles. What to do about the IbnAmoun COI situation, I don't know. --John Nagle (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear sirs, this civility business is very regrettable but I have nothing to do with it. There is no COI since I do not edit and do not disguise my source of conflict by posting edits on other pages on the occasion. As a representative of Prof Taleb my intervention here is limited to insuring all sources about subject are properly sourced from valid newspapers, nothing else, presenting them on talk page, and removing false information about mischaracterization of Taleb's activities and funds. This is compliance with wikipedia's BLP. User:Nagle|John Nagle has been posting matters about "Taleb inflating his returns" more than a dozen instances, along with a steady pattern of posting degrading the character of the subject Nassim Nicholas Taleb, in addition to posting matters that are plainly erroneous like "Taleb claims about his returns" when it is clearly not Taleb but wsj. Add to that pure original research trying to do analyses on Taleb's funds. All what has been done is revert. Taleb has been under pressure from detractors (owing to his criticism of the finance industry) and we cannot do anything about criticism and sourced matters.

Let me recap: I only remove false information that make its way into the bio. In the case of the returns in the most recent a finance tabloid gossip blog has data that has conflicted with WSJ not without a reason and not a good source --and I am certain that the source is totally unacceptable with wiki standards (the data is not fact checked, clearly otherwise it would conflict with WSJ and BusinessWeek/Bloomberg). The other accounts are clearly not related to me and there is no "in concert" business. I wonder if these discussions should not be in concert with the wikipedia foundation whom we are contacting.

As you are well aware, the subject of a biography is entitled (though himself or a representative) to correct erroneous factual information and potentially libelous postings.

Finally, we believe that user Nagle should be barred from Taleb's page as all his edits show a pattern of Bad Faith (obsessive dislike of a living subject) and clearly have a very strong libel nature to them. Clearly my role here would be close to nonexistent in his absence. IbnAmioun (talk) 07:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

PS- note that it is not about the returns in the data. The data we turned down as a valid source does not conflict that much with WSJ and others. It is innocently incomplete and someone has filled gaps by "guessing" (it was compiled by some "watcher" not by an investor and stopped with partial 2003). So it is a matter of principle of what constitutes a source for wiki. It is also the commentary on the gossip page that is not professional (40% return in 3 years is stellar by any standard). IbnAmioun (talk) 08:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm now the fifth person IbnAmoun has attacked in this way. Looking at IbnAmioun's edit history, he was similarly annoyed with Ulner (talk · contribs), AleXd (talk · contribs), Elroch (talk · contribs), and Sked123 (talk · contribs). This seems to be his standard behavior whenever anyone objects to his ownership of Taleb-related articles. He's threatened legal action before, and he's contacted the Wikimedia Foundation before, with no effect. His last block for this was 36 hours, on December 16, 2010. Perhaps a longer block would be in order. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 08:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting reaction to request a block about the rep of the subject of a bio so you can post matters that clash with wiki standards. Last time the block came as I reverted the "Taleb claims", and the comment "Taleb cannot be a source on Taleb" when it was WSJ, not Taleb making these claims, triggering a shady reaction.

Now I agree of the sin of some aggressivity in the past these took place without my full knowledge of the rules but took place when Taleb was being savaged by bankers whom he attacked in his book (Paranoia turned out to be justified when death threats were issued against Taleb, see source WSJ). Here this doesn't prevent the truth that Nagle seems bent on posting libelous statements style he is just a trader who writes books, his returns are not good or he is well known for inflating his returns, or similar matters that are just libel. This would disqualify any editor --not counting original research. So I would like Nagle to be completely blocked from the Taleb page. IbnAmioun (talk) 09:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Finally there is an important point about subject: he patently does not discuss his finance activities and is not interested in promoting them. Look at his web site and official bio. His finance background comes page 3, in a rapid mention. So there is evidence of no possible way of trying to use wikipedia for promotion of his financial businesses or record on his part. IbnAmioun (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

RETURNS. Dear administrators, leaving the problem of original research by user Nagle aside, and the fact that Wiki cannot accept blog sources from non-fact checked news services (most certainly they become cited by some circularity). Nagle's motive might appears that Prof. Taleb is not disclosing his bad years and that a cumulative return for the so-called Black Swan strategies need to be presented. It is the problem of survivorship bias that is at the center of Prof T's earlier book. Well, there is data to do so from official sources and (even using the flimsy sources) would give a minimum of around 150% cumulative returns by assuming 0% in years in which the WSJ wrote "single digits" (the data absent was 2005-7 when the strategy was in complete hiatus). Compare that to -23% for the market over the decade. That is the minimum, and the true numbers unpublished lie higher. Prof. Taleb made a statement to that effect in The Black Swan. Now ignoring that might be misunderstanding, not bad faith. But repeatedly ignoring that is a severe problem, which is why we would like Mr Nagle to be prevented from further involvement.IbnAmioun (talk) 14:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• OK, I've blocked the IP 2 weeks for making legal threats (remarks about how many lawyers Taleb has and how likely he is to sue). Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

First of all I think that in my opinion the article Nassim Nicholas Taleb has improved over the years, and one reason for this is that there are many interested people who know much about the books, articles etc Taleb has written and also about the other activitives. Both IbnAmioun and Nagle are experts concerning this subject in my opinion. For this reason I think a much better solution than blocking of anyone would be if there is some way to reach a consensus in some way. First I would hope that there is more room on the talk page for discussion, both positive and negative, without being accussed of libel or slander. If some statement is incorrect or biased, just say so: "Your statement is incorrect and biased. It is incorrect because ABC. It is biased because ABC.". Second, I concur with IbnAmioun that Business Insider is not a reliable source, and cannot be used as reference. For this reason I think it should not be used as a reference in the main article. However, I think it should be allowed to be discussed on the talk page - where a more detailed investigation and discussion of the claims of this article may proceed. Third, as IbnAmioun writes he has the right to delete material which is libel/slander, and this is also an important way to have a high quality of these biographies and follow the BLP rules. Ulner (talk) 15:38, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

One more comment about the summary of IbnAmioun above: "Nagle's motive might appears that Prof. Taleb is not disclosing his bad years and that a cumulative return for the so-called Black Swan strategies need to be presented." What is important here is if know information about the "missing years" are found, we should publish nothing about these years on Misplaced Pages. It will not be acceptable to publish original research with some analysis about these years. However, if a credible source is found which have some criticism or ideas concerning this, it may be acceptable to be included (depending on cirumstances). Ulner (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent intervention. The main matter hanging would then be resolved. The only evidence required is to show that Prof. Taleb's "Black Swan Protection" strategy was not in action in 2005-2007. All other years can constitute evidence for lower bound. We do not need to publish on bio so long as there is backup on talk. And there is a statement to that effect by Prof T that can be provided. And please let us avoid unprofessional statements of the style "meh" and "not so good" in any discussion. (Note that Prof Taleb only cares about substantive matters, and accusations of concealing returns is a substantive matter. ) IbnAmioun (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

On the Empirica Capital returns issue, I've sent that to Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Hedge_fund_returns_for_Empirica_Capital., which is probably the right forum. On the attacks from the anon issue, thanks for the block. That was getting annoying. Still not sure about the IbnAmioun (talk · contribs) issue. It's rare for someone to have their very own personal editor, openly identified as such and editing in no other area, promoting their public image. This remains a WP:OWN problem. On the other hand, since more editors have been looking at this article, the hype level has been dialed down from 11 to maybe 9 or so. Progress of sorts. --John Nagle (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Why has this incivil self-confessed COI single-purpose account, with a consistent history of WP:NPOV violations on behalf of his principle, not been permanently blocked? --Orange Mike | Talk 17:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Please do not mix the incivility with me (some other poster with whom I have nothing to do) and if there has been temper problems any in the past, I agree that it is not permissible. But as explained above, the subject has the right to be protected against libelous statements and remove/point out to false information. That's what makes wikipedia work. And I am not concealing identity of representation. The subject has the right to be protected against errors and libel. IbnAmioun (talk) 18:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

You can always communicate concerns about the article to WP:OTRS instead of editing on-wiki. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Jewish control of the media

Uninvolved eyes are needed on the discussion at Talk:Jewish control of the media (antisemitic canard)#Requested_move. It is getting pretty heated. I made a page move that seemed like a no-brainer, but one editor seems to be objecting strongly. I have submitted the page title to WP:RM for a full discussion. I'd like some help to keep that discussion on track. Jehochman 05:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a number of editors have been objecting. Plus, there are policies about how pages are to be moved. You don't just take it upon yourself. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 06:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• I have filed a request at WP:RM#Current requests to have this premature move reverted. Way out of line. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

This is also at WP:NPOVN#Need neutral descriptor for Jewish control of the media article title. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

IMEKO vandal advertising SPA

We have just blocked a vandal on nl.wikipedia, using 2 registered accounts (nl:User:Imeko, nl:User:IMEKO-IO) and an IP-address (nl:User talk:192.53.103.200). The registered accounts have been blocked indefenitely, the ip for one day (reason: advertising on nl:IMEKO) I checked the crosswiki contributions, and saw that the same accounts and IP address are also editing here at IMEKO. User:Imeko redirects to IMEKO - TBloemink 10:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked by Edgar181 and page CSD G11 by me. This organisation may be notable in the scientific field, but that article wasn't. Better to start again. Incidentally, I've changed the title. I don't think he comes under the category 'vandal' in the en.wiki definition. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Signing posts

Is there a rule requiring an established user to sign its posts on talk pages? Or is it just a politeness convention? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:16, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this more like a help desk question? :) Misplaced Pages:Signatures: "Any posts made to the user talk pages, article talk pages and any other discussion pages must be signed." It's a guideline, but lacking some common sense reason why consensus should not be followed should not be ignored. --Moonriddengirl 14:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)WP:SIG is a guideline that the community has shown interest in enforcing by block if there is dickery about over sigs. So for all intents and purposes it can be treated as policy if there is great need, as you may recall from participation in Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Docu. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly talking hypothetically. I've run across a user who won't sign, and if he persists in not signing, I'm wondering what the recourse is, if any. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this discussion and of the requirement. I'm marking it "resolved", though the user could still come here and make a counter-argument if necessary. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 14:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added what you might term an explanatory warning . Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2032 Summer Olympics

Anyone know how to fix this? Looks like it was nominated incorrectly. Erpert 15:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, there's no point in creating an article for an event thats over 2 decades away. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy was declined because the new articleis "subtantially different" from the deleted article. People are already adding sources so the article doesn't get deleted. Not sure if this is good or not :-/ --Enric Naval (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It's pointless, but also harmless. I just wonder where to stop. Maybe I should create an Oscar page for the year 3001. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

It says the result was "delete", but obviously it's not deleted. In any case, the spelling and usage were not so good, and I've fixed a few things. Now to go work on the article about the 3001 Oscars. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Create it in your user space. In a few hundred years, have someone move it to the article space.  :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's a start at it: "The 1,073rd Academy Awards ceremony will honor the best in visual media for the year 3000. It will take place on February 31, 3001, on www.littleoscar.mars. Thanks to the expert work of her plastic surgeon, actress Dori N. Grey will host the show for the 500th consecutive year." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that's also where the 3006 Summer Olympics bid will be declared. Or do we have an article on that already? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm on it: "The 3006 Summer Olympics, officially known as the Games of the MMMMXXXI Olympiad, are a major intergalactic multi-sport event to be celebrated in the tradition of the Olympic Games, as governed by the Interstellar Olympic Committee (ISOC). The host city of the Games will be Zeus City on the satellite I/O. This will be the first Olympics held since the great computer plague of 2031 that rubbed out the 2032 Olympics, the 2032 Oscars, and other events for over 970 years until an English-speaking Help Desk person could finally be located." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Point of order: in 3000 it will be ssww.foo.mars, since it will be the solarsystem-wide web, or maybe even the gww if that hyperdrive ever gets invented. Acroterion _(talk) 16:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 16:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping someone from taking the new article to a properly formatted AfD. After all, WP:CRYSTAL only says that the 2036 Olympics are too soon.... OTOH, there are slim pickings for RS.... Sailsbystars (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Advocacy in Anti-Semitism articles

• Carolmooredc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have discovered that an editor heavily involved in editing some articles on anti-semitism, Israel, and Judaism has imported a real life battle into Misplaced Pages. I am involved in these discussions, acting in the capacity of an ordinary editor, not as an administrator. Please see:

• Dealing with the nefarious influence of Israel Firsters on Congress and in the media (which is mostly owned and/or controlled by pro-Zionists, mostly Jews)...
• Discussion from July 2010
• Carol Moore should be banned from entries involving Jews, Judaism, or Israel. Period. - I agree.
• Current page naming dispute at Talk:Allegations of Jewish control of the media

My request is for a community topic ban restricting CarolMooreDC from any pages related to anti-Semitism, Israel/Palestine and Judaism. We do not need real life activists using Misplaced Pages as a platform for their work. We do not need somebody who states that the media is controlled by Jews (an outrageous anti-semitic lie) to be heavily involved in a discussion about how to name the article Jewish control of the media.

All editors should be reminded that it is not outing when an editor disclosed that they edit under their own name, and self-discloses their off-wiki activities. (This is admirable transparency, in my opinion.) Every editor should be aware of what topics they have problems writing neutrally about, and stay away from them. They should especially avoid disputed editing of those topics. When an editor fails to do so, it is the community's job to help them keep out of topics where they are likely to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Jehochman 17:54, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, may I ask if the user guilty of something tangible? Is he guilty of vandalism, harassment, or something along these lines? Flamarande (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Persistent violations of WP:CPUSH and WP:NPOV. Please review the linked discussions. Jehochman 18:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

here is a past ANI about her advocacy that was buried: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard&oldid=383934323#user:carolmooredc_writing_a_book_and_using_wp_to_make_her_pov Darkstar1st (talk)

Hmm, sadly I can't help feeling a little boomerang may end up happening here... I'm far far from Carols biggest fan ;) but from here it looks a lot like Jehochman jumped into this latest move dispute by going on a pretty pointy diatribe against the article (ok, we get that it is a canard of some profile and annoyance and should be properly treated as such, but, really, there is a way to address such an issue) some of which was quite strongly directed at Carol. Reading the talk threads I don't think there is a more clear example of having a "point of view" in relation to an article ;). I'm not sure why past history about Carol has been dragged up here on AN/I, that seems to be a case of casting wildly in the dark to try and paint Carol as an anti-semite.. and to win the argument that way. Rather dubiously if I am honest. However it seems a reasonable opportunity to look into Jehochman's involvement in that discussion and possibly slap some wrists or something? I have to say, Jehochman, I'm a little disappointed I always took you for a laid back editor :( (Reading through; both Jehochman and Carol need to step back and calm down, dragging this to AN/I is going to help neither of you. There is incivility and nastiness abound on that page between you two - both accusing each other of the same things, and then turning round and doing exactly what you complain about in the next breath... it's an exercise in getting a headache :) take it off your watchlists for a few weeks and let some others sort it out) --Errant 19:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe it's forebidden for editors to push their political views on Misplaced Pages articles. PS: I've always observed that international media was anti-Israel. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Sharon would love to have Hamas killing American troops, just like he's delighted to see them killing Jews, imagine if she had wrote Obama delighted in killing african americans??? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance in your making such a comment, and it is definitely uncivil. Stop it. --Errant 19:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

reread the links provided, you will see killing jews was carols words, not mine. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to you bringing it up here, like Jehochman, and adding your own commentary to attack Carol. Stop it. --Errant 19:30, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Jehochman is annoyed cause I was a little late putting up my notice I mentioned him in Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Brewcrewer. Or that I was quick to make it clear that you just can't change an article's name back to previous one without doing a WP:RM.

Anyway, people keep dredging up that one email where I went on a rant after receiving a number of thinly veiled death threats from the person I address in the email (who was soon kicked off a number of lists), as I describe in a couple of the discussions linked, including link to evidence. (Why do I feel like there's a central database on my editing habits??) Anyway, nobody's perfect.

However, having a generally known libertarian/pro-peace POV obviously makes one very careful and even WIkilawyerly in one's editing. If I had to do it all over I guess 4 years ago I would have picked an anonymous handle like everyone else her and elsewhere complaining does. Then, like theirs, my POV only be determined from their edits and talk page entries. I have a lot of fun thinking about what that anonymous handle would have been. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

User:89.76.176.180 and UVB-76

89.76.176.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been involved for sometime in adding poorly sourced content to UVB-76. I have been working to try to improve the article by removing unsourced or poorly sourced content in accordance with the requirements of Misplaced Pages:Verifiability but 89.76.176.180 seems now to be insisting on keeping poorly sourced content in the article. More recently he has attempted to add this content whilst resorting to referring to WP:IAR.

The content he has added is all sourced to a personal website, which as per Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, like other self-published sources, are "largely not acceptable as sources". Even more concerning here is that website belongs to 89.76.176.180. I have raised this issue and he has confirmed that the website is his.

Due to my involvement here I don't wish to act any further at this point but I would appreciate some help with resolving this issue. Considering 89.76.176.180's comment that "If something is on other Misplaced Pages, it's reliable. Very simple" and the apparent failure of myself and others to get him to understand the verifiability problems here I would suggest this isn't going to be easy. Adambro (talk) 18:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Complex situation at Mdvanii

The situation is becoming pretty complex on this page. We have a User:Alec jiri who is battling a User:Orumsonu. They are both insulting each other over a potential conflict of interest. Alec Jiri is the name of the adopted son of the creator of the Mdvanii doll and the user Alec jiri wrote much of the current article. Now the user is claiming that he is not actually Alec Jiri, merely an acquaintance. I think this may be a user name violation and I definitely think this needs more eyes as it spiraled out of control just as I was sleeping. Any help would be appreciated. --Leivick (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No comment on the behavior, but I would tend to say that the username (when taken by itself) is not a username violation. Alec Jiri does not appear famous enough for this to warrant a block as a celebrity username, and the username doesn't give me the impression that the account represents more than one person (although the edit you mention where he says he is just an acquaintance might be suspect in that direction). --Ks1stm (talk) 19:10, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm? If he's editing as "Alec jiri" and he's not Alec Jiri my first instinct would definitely be to block. It's OK when someone has the same name as someone else just by chance, but he obviously chose this deliberately. —Soap— 19:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know...I guess if he is trying to come off as actually being Alec Jiri, then I would see it as a violation, but since he has disclosed that he is not, I see it as not that serious. I would say, though, that a more public disclosure (on his userpage and user talk), perhaps, would be for the best. --Ks1stm (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards